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

[Andy Hughes]

Tom
To some extent, I can appreciate that type of view. After all, who among us does not love the wild, wind-swept, open look of a true links course?  We see a few pictures of Sand Hills (leaving aside the question of what is a true links course), and we all start to drool on ourselves. Certainly I do.  But presumably we can all also differentiate between courses like that and non-links courses that are, well, just different.
But I am unclear why Pat thinks it is wrong to have a tree block his direct path to the pin from the edge of the fairway, or why Mike M thinks that if the architect originally wanted that tree or trees there, then it is ok, but if the architect didn't call for them to be there, then they should be removed.  How's the hole play, that's what matters!

[mike_malone]

 Andy,
       I find that the best way to judge "how the hole plays" for classic courses designed by acknowledged experts is to research "what they might do today". This is not easy;so, the average guy says "let's make the hole better." But "better" is arbitrary and subject to interpretation and can be derived from completely different points of view.

    So, I put little faith in what I or any amateur thinks is "better". What makes a course like PV great is the design philosophy as executed. So, I think the give and take here about what Crump wanted with attempts to get real research involved is the way to go and what makes GCA. com valuable.

     So, did Crump want to PLANT trees in the line of play? "Plant" is key word because it is different than "dealing" with trees that were there .The cost of removal alone deterred many from getting rid of those trees.

     Or,did he want to separate the holes thru plantings. I have no problem with this;in fact, it can add to the charm of a course. The only problem was that other courses without the space between holes adopted this strategy of planting and it has diminished the course.

   I suspect that he did not want to eliminate angles of attack to the wonderfully complex greens at PV. Why would he want  it any other way. Practically every one building courses then believed in the recovery shot.
     
   

[mike_malone]

 TEPaul,
        Did  Flynn express different views on trees that were there at construction versus  planting them afterwards? I have only the one comment about trees and it seems clear to me from that one and only comment that he would not "PLANT" trees in the line of play.
    I would be interested in other writings that differ from this view.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Did Flynn express different views on trees that were there at construction versus planting them afterwards?"

Mike:

We've never found that he said or wrote that particular distinction anywhere but what he did that way seems pretty consistent. If he took on a treed site he generally demarked trees he wanted to keep. His drawings or the C.C. of Cleveland are the most explicit we have that way. If a site was completely devoid of trees going in we can't see that he wanted them or designed for them----exs Kittansett, Indian Creek and a few Florida courses.

"I have only the one comment about trees and it seems clear to me from that one and only comment that he would not "PLANT" trees in the line of play."

We've seen Flynn draw some trees on site plan that really didn't have many but we've never really seen those drawn plans followed through on in a actual constructed design sense. He never really got into the tree plans the way he did the plans for architectural construction, as far as we know. However, there was a massive, and elaborate tree planting plan for Shinnecock which was truly fascinating. It was even remarked on by Hugh Alison. And it was expensive, but as far as we can tell it may not have been done! On the other hand, if Flynn found some existing trees that were dramatic or central on a hole he most certainly did use them occassionally for strategic purposes! If anyone at all thinks that's not true, for whatever reason, we can definitely prove them wrong!
   
"I would be interested in other writings that differ from this view."

Flynn wrote quite a bit about trees and architecture and so did Tillinghast.  
 
 

[wsmorrison]

Flynn called for planting trees in specific locations at Cherry Hills CC.  I'm not certain if they were implemented.  Perhaps Mark Fine or others familiar with the course can say.  I'll check some aerials that I have.  However, it is certain that Flynn meant for trees, some of them strategic, to be used at Cherry Hills.  Many on this site seem to generalize and not like this design tendency.  Flynn did design strategic trees to be used when they were there (Huntingdon Valley, CC Pepper Pike, Cascades, and many more) and when they were not (Shinnecock as Tom P mentioned and at Cherry Hills).

At Cherry Hills, on the 4th hole, he indicated tree plantings in 3 locations, 2 on the right side and a strategic grouping of trees on the left between 210-250 yards out.  Balls that land in the far left fairway were stymied by the trees and would have to shape a shot around the trees to the green on this 412 yard hole.  The 5th hole drawing indicates 3 groups of trees to be planted 2 on the left and one group short and right of the green.  These do not seem strategic in any way as they are 20-30 yards off the fairway lines.  The 7th hole drawing shows again 3 sets of trees to be planted.  Two on either side framing the tee shot about 90 yards out and then a strategic grouping between 230-260 yards out on the left that effectively blocks a shot to the green if you miss the fairway left.  The trees are at the dogleg left along with mounds and hollows inside the tree line.  The 10th hole drawing indicates tree planting on either side of the tee box, on the left fairway at 200 yards opposite a right side bunker, right side of the fairway at 250 yards and short left and long right of the green on this 379 yard hole.   Flynn called for planting trees in 6 locations on the 11th hole, only one of which is strategic, on the left side of the fairway opposite a boundary to prevent bailouts on the tee shot.  Flynn indicated planting a grove of trees right and beyond the green on 14.  On 16, Flynn indicated planting 3 groups of trees along the right fairway between 260 and 370 yards out.  On the 18th hole, Flynn drew a group of trees to be planted 30 yards short and 20 yards right of the green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Wharton Palmer,

With regards aerials, how about comparing Augusta National aerials from 70 years ago with todays,

Have you played ANGC ?

What makes you think that ANGC today bears any resemblance to Pine Valley, today, in the encroaching and claustrophobic tree department ?

ANGC remains a wide open golf course.[/color]

that suggests we should remove all those trees that make Augusta what it has become...who wants the task of doing that?

That's convoluted logic.

Show me one area of ANGC where trees interfere with the golfers swing when he's in a bunker.

Show me one area where the golfer is in the fairway, and trees at the green prohibit approach ?

I'd suggest that you become more familiar with ANGC before comparing the trees on the property with the tree problem at PV.

Were you aware that ANGC was a tree nursery before it was a golf course ?[/color]
 
That is if you subscribe to that train of thought, because as Mr Mucci so clearly stated yesterday..what you do for one course should apply everywhere!!!

If that's what you think I said, I've overestimated your reading comprehension skills and intellect.  
Try being honest, not coy.
Go back and reread what I said, and while doing so, look for the operative word, "principles"[/color]

That may be taking this thread to far, but that is what some of the critisism of Pv on this thread has suggested.
Cite where that criticism has been suggested ![/color]

Please somebody tell me when it was decided trees cannot be used as a form of strategy, what is wrong with a tree or trees being used to dictate the way a hole should be played?
I'll try to make this simple so that even you can understand.

Crump didn't design # 17 such that balls hit into the fairway would have the flight of approaching shots to the green impeded by trees that block the line of play, that were planted as an afterthought by someone else, long after he designed the golf course.

Please tell me you understant that ![/color]

If it is a problem courses like Sahalee really have a problem!

Have you played Sahalee ?[/color]

[mike_malone]

thanks for your reply Tom. I spoke with a gentleman who caddied at Rolling Green in the 30's and is now a long time member. He said Swarthmore College was involved in the tree plantings at RG in the 30's. I have always been fascinated by these PLANTINGS since they conform to what I "think" Flynn intended---out of play,separate holes, background, shade on a hot day.These clearly were not intended to interfere with the intended line of play.

[wsmorrison]

"TEPaul,
        Did  Flynn express different views on trees that were there at construction versus  planting them afterwards? I have only the one comment about trees and it seems clear to me from that one and only comment that he would not "PLANT" trees in the line of play."

What one comment are you referring to?  You have to guard statements by Flynn and other architects.  Just because they wrote something about design theory doesn't mean they practiced it exclusively.  You know what Flynn wrote about water at landing areas and fronting greens.  Yet, there are a number of instances where he used them.  They might be descriptions of design tendencies but they were not hard and fast rules.  

We've gone over this many times now.  I've demonstrated numerous examples, Mike.  Flynn did plant and use strategic trees.  I'm sorry you don't like it, but it is true.  What is wrong with the variety in designs that Flynn practiced that includes trees and water in moderation?

[mike_malone]

Wayne,
  I do  not disagree with your statement about Flynn's planting of trees for strategy. I was just hoping that you guys who have more info might have something in writing on this issue. Clearly the trees planted on #12 at RG represent strategy.

  But do you see evidence of annoying trees right in the ideal landing area? This is the real concern.

I also agree that it is artistic license to break your own rules sometimes.

[TEPaul]

Mike Malone asked;

"So, did Crump want to PLANT trees in the line of play? "Plant" is key word because it is different than "dealing" with trees that were there .The cost of removal alone deterred many from getting rid of those trees."

That's hard to say. Whether it was planting them or using what was there is hard to say. It doesn't seem he did want to use trees in the line of reasonable play (fairway) (whether existing or planted) with one very notable exception---the great #13! On that particular hole it does seem the trees that hook from right to left at the end of the fairway were something Crump very much wanted to use---and in a strategic sense. Matter of fact, that hole is so interesting in both what he wanted and the way it came to be it probably deserves it's own thread. So that's what I'll do.

 

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

PM
Sorry to dissapoint but yes to having layed AGCG, I assume you have also otherwise surely you would not be so blantantly coy...anyway...
Again I do not know your level of play but...
1. Drive down the lfet side of#3..blocked out by TREES
2. Drive down the left side of #9..blocked out by TREES
3. Drive down left side of # 14..blocked out bY TREES
4. Drive not long enough on # 18..blocked out by TREES

Also strategic trees have been planted on several hole, notably #13,and 17 , in order to make the player think where he wats to be off the tee.

If you dont consider some of your comments as critisism, it must be something to do with the difference in our upbringing, it sure reads like critisim to me, not that I consider that necessarily a bad thing, but you are obviously sensitive to that word..so I will leave that one alone.

On the topic of intellect and reading ability, my intelect is not in question and if it comes to a pissing contest on that issue I suggest you put yours back inside your pants right now!!

Excuse me for missing out the word principle, but whilst on the topic of "non reading and comprehension"
I thought we had established that myself and TP agree trees in bunkers are not desirable..so for I think the thirs time..we/I agree this is not a good thing...simple enough for you?

As for the tree impingement on # 17, at first I was inclined to agree with you, now that I know you can be a smart ass, so will I, hit it down the right side if you know the tree is there..just like I had to on # 14 at ANGC.

Yes, I was awre it was a nursery prior to being a golf course, however, the aerials still show a huge difference in the density and number of trees over the past 50 years..I believe it is something to do with this thing called growth, which funny enough also happened at Pine Valley.
My sources say this always happens when green plants get sunlight and water!!

Alas, no I have not played Sahallee all my info there is second hand from players who have played in the "Players" event held there, but they all seem to like it, but do say it is like an obstruction course through the trees.

[wsmorrison]

"But do you see evidence of annoying trees right in the ideal landing area?"

Since you say this is a concern, where do you find annoying trees in ideal landing areas?  By definition, those ideal landing areas would no longer be ideal, if they ever were.  But I'm not sure what you mean with this question.  Do you mean tree plantings over time that sometimes follow the narrowing of fairways due to irrigation contstraints?  If so, yes it does occur.  At Rolling Green it is the secondary tree lines that are problematic.  Original tree lines or those that were planted in the 1930s are 40 yards off center.  To me that is a wide enough corridor for most any design or player.

Far more often it is rough that intrudes on ideal landing areas with fairway shrinkage.  Take Rolling Green for instance, the rough on the right side of 2 is in the ideal area to attack the green given its orientation to the fairway and the bunkering.  With today's fairway lines and given the fairway cant, you have to either hit a straight shot over the bunker complex on the left being careful not to go into the bunker further on or hit a draw off right center.  This is a pretty high demand tee shot.

[wsmorrison]

Mike,

As to writings that indicated Flynn's philosophy on the issue of strategic trees on golf courses, his hole drawings with instructions for strategic tree planting or retention for strategic purposes speak volumes and is evidence enough.  I'd be glad to show you the examples I've mentioned and others if you need further convincing.

Which trees on 12 are you referring to when you speak of planting for strategy?

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Redanman,
Beautifully written, well said, and even tree lovers like myself, cannot possibly argue with you.  I think everybody who is a player as well as a golf course architecture lover would have to agree with what you wrote.

[Jim_Coleman]

    Wayne:
    Dr. Malone believes (no, not believes, knows) that the two windswept, attractive, almost Monterey-like pines guarding the right of 12 are causing Flynn to roll over in his grave.  In my view, those two trees STRATEGICALLY protect the green, allowing 12 to be a great, short par 4.  Without them. a wide slice leaves a wide open wedge to the green, while a modest fade leaves a challenging bunker shot.  Did Flynn want to encourage a poorly struck shot.  I think not.  And I happen to think they're pretty good looking, too, although reasonable minds could disagree.  I don't see, though, how reasonable minds could disagree on whether the trees add to the challenge of what is a great, short hole, or that removing them would make the hole less challenging and less great.

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

Sorry to have gotten off the Pine Valley thread, but to answer your questions about the set up of 12 at Rolling Green GC shown below:



For those that haven't been to RGGC or haven't been in a while, the pine even with the second bunker on the right is gone as is the one barely visible just behind.  The large pines between the green and the 17th century house (to the right of the maintenance complex visible straight away) are almost all gone, save one, as are a large number of trees beyond the green and over the hill.  There are still two pines short of the green but not as far left as were the two near the bunkers.  

I do not favor those 2 remaining trees either.  I know that a long hitter can bomb a drive over the creek (which has been extended to the left about 15 yards) and have difficult but possible uphill lob over a deep bunker onto a green that slopes towards you.  I've made that shot a few times.  The pines are not full and it is relatively easy to get lucky and hit under or through the few branches.  Taking these trees down certainly simplifies the hole for the long hitter.  However, I like temptation and think temptation is an excellent design feature.  Tempting the player to drive over the creek (from the back tee) by opening up the hole (and the resulting better view) is ideal.  However, the play from the members' tee would be a great deal easier from this angle of approach.  

Yet, the preferred angle  to play this hole would still be from the fairway, specifically the left fairway.  Today it remains problematic that you can be in the bunkers on the right and have the trees between you and the green.  But, some may argue that on such a short hole, the accuracy called for on the tee should be high and there should be a penalty for not executing a shot in the fairway.  But on balance I feel the trees remain an aerial hazard in line to the green from a hazard and that's not good.

I think it is fine that there are differing opinions on this and other matters relating to trees.  There isn't always a right answer nor should there be one way of looking at trees in design.

However, disagreeing with Mike Malone and his Maloneisms is often a safe route  

[wsmorrison]

Well, how do you like that, Bill V?  Here it is with a month to go in the year and we made our quota on agreeing on at least one thing per year!    I wasn't sure it was going to happen this year.  But it did.  

[mike_malone]

 I will not answer Mr. Coleman since he is just trying to get a reaction---I am sure he does not believe those 2 trees add to the strategy of #12 RG. I believe he was at one time well respected in his professional field and recently was a great help at our club in a volunteer role. I can't believe he all of a sudden has lost his mind. He is only kidding.

  Wayne, The trees planted in the 30's --the deciduous ones---created a dogleg. This added the strategy. Those who planted them had the good sense to stop at the creek,so as not to ruin the architectural concepts of the hole. They would not cover up the hazards at the green.


      redanman is correct--this hole may have the widest stroke dispersion of any on the course,for some the definition of a great hole. When we open up the hole to the way it was designed,built, and maintained for forty years I would guess more dispersion will ensue.

[JSlonis]

Jim,

Sorry to have gotten off the Pine Valley thread, but to answer your questions about the set up of 12 at Rolling Green GC shown below:

Wayne & Mike,

The 12th is a much better hole with the tree removal.  With the photo above...On an aesthetic note, from the tee to the fairway to the approach, you've got some pretty intense mowing patterns at Rolling Green. The blimp cam would have a field day.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I too would endorse the removal of the pines visible, they apperar to be redundant with the bunker already well placed for strategy.

[wsmorrison]

Jamie,

I certainly do agree with you about the tree removal making the hole better and offering a degree of temptation that makes for decision making.  Any time good golfers have to think about strategy it is one additional branch of the decision making tree that helps separate the complete golfer from the rest of the field.

I couldn't agree with you more about the mowing patterns.  I cannot stand them, especially on classic courses.  I've been saying this for years.  Nobody listens to me at home, why should they at the golf course    Give me that up and back gang mower look everytime!  The skill of the men doing the mowing is evident with the cross hatchings--large and small nearer the green with a straight line across to delineate ).  It is a huge waste of time and money, looks terrible, and gives away too much of the ground movement.  Other than that.....  On this particular hole it camouflages the depression leading up to the hill where the creek now comes in a bit.  Man do those mowing patterns look particularly bad on all the uphill approaches.

[mike_malone]

Wayne,
    When I went to NGLA I became a believer in what you say about mowing patterns.

[wsmorrison]

I knew there was hope for you, Mike.  Despite what most people say  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

1. Drive down the lfet side of#3..blocked out by TREES
2. Drive down the left side of #9..blocked out by TREES
3. Drive down left side of # 14..blocked out bY TREES
4. Drive not long enough on # 18..blocked out by TREES

That's a completely untrue and disengenuous response.

No TREES by the green block the left approach to # 3
No TREES by the green block the left apporach to # 9
No TREES by the green block the left approach to # 14
No TREES by the green block the right approach to # 18

All of these approaches are WIDE open from the fairway.[/color]

Also strategic trees have been planted on several hole, notably #13,and 17 , in order to make the player think where he wats to be off the tee.

NO STRATEGIC TREES HAVE BEEN PLANTED ON EITHER HOLE.
Where on # 13 have any trees been planted by the green or fairway ?
The trees on the right of # 17 are merely an extension of trees in the DZ that have been there for 60 years and in no way do they intrude upon the flight of any ball approaching the green from the fairway.[/color]

Excuse me for missing out the word principle, but whilst on the topic of "non reading and comprehension"

How could you miss the word "principles" ? which was a CRITICAL word, either your comprehension skills need brushing up on, or you chose to miss it as a matter of convenience, as evidenced by your subsequent post and erroneous interpretation of what I said.[/color]

I thought we had established that myself and TP agree trees in bunkers are not desirable..so for I think the thirs time..we/I agree this is not a good thing...simple enough for you?
You again miss the point.
It's obvious that Crump didn't plant them, that someone else did, and that they're contrary to Crump's design philosophy.

Is it such a quantum leap for you and TEPaul to recognize that perhaps the same folks that erroneously planted the trees in or near bunkers also erroneously planted trees that intrude into the lines of play elsewhere on the golf course ?
[/color]

As for the tree impingement on # 17, at first I was inclined to agree with you, now that I know you can be a smart ass, so will I, hit it down the right side if you know the tree is there..just like I had to on # 14 at ANGC.

In your foolish quest to support a flawed understanding of architecture's relationship to playability, you selfishly suggest abandoning architectural principles for the first time player.

And, you selfishly abandon those players incapable of controllling their ball flight with such precision.... .the vast majority of golfers.

So now I understand your viewpoint, your perspective and your lack of understanding of architecture and it's influence on players of diverse abilites.

You'll find, as TEPaul found, that with time, you'll agree with me, more and more, on this and other subjects.  I know it's difficult to come to grips with, but it will happen.

It's unfortunate that you've come under the influence of TEPaul, the Rasputin of American Golf Course Architecture.
The man needs a specially trained, architectural seeing eye dog, to guide him through the labryth of design principles, on and off of the golf course.  Had you picked anyone else to align yourself with, I might have considered your convoluted logic, but, you've made your bed.
[/color]

Yes, I was awre it was a nursery prior to being a golf course, however, the aerials still show a huge difference in the density and number of trees over the past 50 years..I believe it is something to do with this thing called growth, which funny enough also happened at Pine Valley.

Mike, you need to see an eye doctor.
That's not true, at least it wasn't a month or so ago.
There are no dense, indiscriminate tree plantings obstructing lines of play at ANGC.

Are you going to compare the thick, inpenetrable, indiscriminate planting of trees, and their impact on play at PV to that at ANGC ?

If so, I'm wasting my time discussing this with you because you obviously don't grasp the problem or the difference.

The trees at ANGC have only been planted in the last five years, and nowhere do those plantings impede shots from the fairway into the greens as they do at PV.

I'm not a fan of it, but the trees that were planted at ANGC were done for one purpose, to affect one specific level of player, and the impact was in the DZ, not at the green end.[/color]

Alas, no I have not played Sahallee .....

[Jim_Coleman]

    The problem with removing the pine trees (the big one's gone now; the other two smallish ones aren't shown), is that if you miss the bunker to the right (a worse shot than hitting it in the bunker), you will be rewarded with a wide open shot.  The trees are not a double penalty with the bunker; they only penalize a more errant shot.  And, at least in my opinion, they're quite attractive.
    Were the pine trees on Pebble's 18th bad?  Are the new trees on Augusta's 15th bad?  Both sides an be argued.  But trees CAN be used to shape a hole.  RG's 12th is a short dogleg right requiring a shot down the left side.  Take away the trees, you take away the dogleg and reward a poorly hit shot.