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

[TEPaul]

Jim Coleman:

You're right---both sides of the issue certainly can be argued and probably equally successfully. Personally, I'd like to see no trees or maybe just a couple and compensate with slightly higher rough or something. The reason I say that is---sure, if you hit a shot right of that bunker down there---what's more interesting---making a player just pitch out of the trees or tempt him into trying to go at the green from an iffy lie and a very risky aggressive play? I realize a lot of golfers would advocate instant penalty for the tee shot---personally I'd like to see things get a bit more interesting---and perhaps variable on the next shot.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Coleman,

What if, instead of the pines,  a series of small, penal bunkers were inserted, in step fashion ?

[TEPaul]

"What if, instead of the pines,  a series of small, penal bunkers were inserted, in step fashion ?"

Hey, Pat, this is William Flynn we're talking about here! Have you EVER seen him do a series of small penal bunkers in step fashion? For a remark like that I want you to  get outta town--go back where you came from and go right to your room with no supper---you big BOOBY?!?  

[mike_malone]

 Yes this is Flynn- he would neeeevvvveeerr plant trees there. Tom, you may argue about bunkers but let's do the right thing first.
   

   I can think of several ideas on this hole-


        get rid of the bunker on the left and extend the creek out to the fairway(there is a creek on the left)-Hanse recommended extending the creek in his master plan,but kept the bunker..This would entice more drivers on the hole. I think the bunkers on both sides reduce the strategy.It may be helpful to know that in 1926 there was a bunker left and none right,but by the 30's photos the left bunker is gone and the right ones along with the three in the back were added. So, there is precedent for opening up the left side.

 As well several of the big evergreens on the left can be taken down so that one could hit the tee shot into #9 bunker!-credit to Wayne.

       extend  the fairway from the back of the second fairway bunker to the creek on the right.- Kelly Blake Moran's thoughts

      widen fairway to the right by the green to promote rollback,possibly into the creek.


       narrow the back of the green by the 3 back bunkers to reduce the number of balls that suck back to the pin
 

      move the cart path down the hill by the green on the right and cut the grass short for a few feet.


       Do things to promote strategy.


     Mr. Coleman seems not to understand "strategy". It has to do with one's thought process before they hit ,not where they end up after they hit. Even if a ball avoids the bunker and the creek on the right and does not make it to the trees,it still is a more difficult shot than  one from a flat lie at 100 yards in the fairway with an open look to the green.What's wrong with a little randomness? Maybe you get lucky sometimes; the point is now you do not try to hit right because you will have no shot to a back right pin---the best pin placement on the hole.

    Maybe Mr. Coleman needs to play a different course that is willing to penalize HIM for his slice.

[mike_malone]

 I know Mr. Coleman just gets a kick  out of being responded to--so I threw him a bone.

[Jim_Coleman]

   I used to play with an 18 handicapper (PV member) who, every time I hit a poor shot, asked my why I hit it there rather than where I was aiming.  On the 12th hole, 99% of the players' "thought process" BEFORE they hit is to hit the ball in the fairway down the left side (as the hole was designed to be played).  The cute little pines are only relevant when the player MISSES his/her shot.  And being right of the bunker now does not REQUIRE a pitchout.  One can attempt to go under, over or around the cute little pines if he/she chooses to take a little RISK - omigod, a strategic decision.  No trees and you've got a very unstrategic, unobstructed flip wedge - a better shot than being in the fairway.
     Sorry, you're blinded by the light of your myopic, knee jerk, unwavering view.  The cute little pines are pretty and serve a STRATEGIC function.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Pat,
I am not aware that at any time I have suggested that trees should be located as obstructions near greens, but it appears that you are under that impression.
I hvae re-read my threads and nowhere does it state that trees are cosecto greens, what I did say about ANGC,and correctly so, is that if you drive the ball on the wrong side of the fairway and/or not long enough, trees are an obstruction between you and the green.
Trees are used to define the doglegs of the hoels mentioned, that is all I said. I agree they are not intrusive, but exist idf the tee ball is incorrectly placed.

At no point did I suggest that the trees planted at ANGC are in the proximity of greens, so do not suggest that I did..but to suggest that newly planted trees are not strategic is plainly incorrect.How can you say that the trees to the right of 13 are not strategic..I just do not understand you on this one..but thats your opinion.
IF however you do believe this, then you are correct we are wasting our time in discussion.

What I was trying to say about the ANGC aerials, is the vast number of Augusta pines that now exist,that  did not in such at the original site.
I was in the understanding that the course is built on what was primarily a fruit tree nursery, which I would imagine did not include many pines, as other than cones they bear little fruit.
One thing that has always baffled me regarding ANGC actually, is my belief that Jones and Dr Mac wanted this St Andrews, wide open look, but someone still decide to plant all those pines!! This is not by the way anything to do with our discussion just an observation...I guess we are glad they did so that we can get the majsetic look we now see.

Despit our spirited discussions, I believe we are closer to eachother's opinions than you think.
I think from initial opinions of PV isolation v/s non isolation we have evolved to tree placement discussion as well.
The wau I see it we have covered three seperate areas:
1.   Should isolation exist at PV, and /or did Crump intene that?
2.   is the current isolation being abused at certain parts of the course?
3.   Should trees or can trees be used as strategic obstacles?

1. This one is simple, I say yes, you say no..and as for Crump we are dealing with second hand reports, which I believe are reliable  nad your are not so sure...okay

2. Belive it or not we agree on this one , there is no doubt that at certain parts of the course tree work has to be done..in the bunkers etc...as clearly this cannot of been Crumps intent.
I am not sure about the left of # 17 but hope I get the chance to check it out next September!!!

3. I am not sure of your view on this one, but I will guess we agree here as well...as long as it is fair and not simply placed as an after thought then trees are okay.
After all that is basically what dictates strategy off the tee at ANGC, in conjunction with the existing fairawy conturs.

So you see we are not that far removed after all!!

I call a truce before it gets ugly, and as an Englishman and in the name of this beautiful game, opinions are not worth getting ugly over.

[TEPaul]

"And being right of the bunker now does not REQUIRE a pitchout."

Jim Coleman:

That's good!

"One can attempt to go under, over or around the cute little pines if he/she chooses to take a little RISK - omigod, a strategic decision."

That's good too! What happens when the pines aren't so little and aren't cute anymore?

"No trees and you've got a very unstrategic, unobstructed flip wedge - a better shot than being in the fairway."

That's not very good---belay that---that's not good at all! If those trees weren't there on the right how do you think some fairly heavy rough in that area would work regarding that unobstruced flip wedge? Are you familiar with the fairly heavy rough down the left side of Merion's #11 and how dicey being in it makes decisions to go at that hole or not with a fairly lofted iron?

[Patrick_Mucci]

...if you drive the ball on the wrong side of the fairway and/or not long enough, trees are an obstruction between you and the green.  Trees are used to define the doglegs of the hoels mentioned, that is all I said. I agree they are not intrusive, but exist idf the tee ball is incorrectly placed.

We weren't talking about someone who powderpuffs their ball of the tee on a DOGLEG and has their line to the green impeded by trees.  We were talking about a drive hit into the fairway in the DZ having the approach shot obstructed by trees at the green[/color]

but to suggest that newly planted trees are not strategic is plainly incorrect.How can you say that the trees to the right of 13 are not strategic..

I was there a month ago.  There are no NEWLY planted trees on the right of # 13.  Perhaps you're confused.[/color]

What I was trying to say about the ANGC aerials, is the vast number of Augusta pines that now exist,that  did not in such at the original site.

That's not true.  Just go back to the aerials and ground level photos circa 1932-1935 and you'll see them.  Some are large, some are small, but, they're there.[/color]
 
I was in the understanding that the course is built on what was primarily a fruit tree nursery, which I would imagine did not include many pines, as other than cones they bear little fruit.

Berkmans Farm was a Fruit and Ornamental tree nursery including Evergreens.  Majestic Pines were in abundance in 1932.[/color]

One thing that has always baffled me regarding ANGC actually, is my belief that Jones and Dr Mac wanted this St Andrews, wide open look, but someone still decide to plant all those pines!! This is not by the way anything to do with our discussion just an observation...I guess we are glad they did so that we can get the majsetic look we now see.
I'm not so sure that I'd agree with your belief.
I think they wanted wide open playing corridors.
Had they wanted a wide open look, they would have cut down all of the trees on the interior of the property.[/color]

1.   Should isolation exist at PV, and /or did Crump intene that?
2.   is the current isolation being abused at certain parts of the course?
3.   Should trees or can trees be used as strategic obstacles?

1. This one is simple, I say yes, you say no..
   
    As I said before, the routing creates its own isolation in
    areas, but, the early photos in the 20's and 30's don't bear
    out isolation as some present day theorists like to claim.
    [/color]

2. Belive it or not we agree on this one , there is no doubt that at certain parts of the course tree work has to be done..in the bunkers etc...as clearly this cannot of been Crumps intent.

3. I am not sure of your view on this one, but I will guess we agree here as well...as long as it is fair and not simply placed as an after thought then trees are okay.

After all that is basically what dictates strategy off the tee at ANGC, in conjunction with the existing fairawy conturs
Here's where we disagree again.
With such wide playing corridors, the trees don't dictate strategy, the orientation of the putting surfaces and their contours dictate strategy.  Until recently, trees weren't much of a factor, with a few exceptions.  And, even when you were in the trees, they were so sparse that playing out of them was relatively easy, provided you had a swing.

Had you met me first, rather then TEPaul, I would have provided you with far better architectural insight.

Now, after coming under his wing,  you'll have to distance yourself from his vacuous thoughts.
It's a difficult process, but, many stand waiting to assist you.[/color]

TEPaul,

I noticed some step like bunkers at Shinnecock.
If they were good enough for Shinnecock why would Flynn prevent them from entering the State of Pennsylvania ? [/color]

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
I noticed some step like bunkers at Shinnecock."

Calm down, Patrick, it doesn't take much for you to get way in over your head!

[Jim_Coleman]

   Tom:
       I am familiar with Merion's setup, and it really works well.  Rolling Green doesn't have the stomach for penal rough, it just doesn't. That's also why the admittedly bad trees to the right of 4 are needed.
     Would the left side of 11 at Merion need protection if there weren't penal rough?  I'd say so.  In fact, I recall there also being some trees over there blocking the route to the green.  I could be wrong, as I'm usually right (pun intended).

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Pat,
First of all I have never met TE Paul, but even if I had, I do think I have earned enough experience playing around the world to still have my own opinion.

Secondly, I was wrong we just dont agree on anything when it comes to trees. I suppose we would certainly disagree on Mr Travis' use of trees on some of his courses..but hey..that okay.

[mike_malone]

 Jim,
   You seem to have forgotten about the little old guy who hit it in the fairway on the right and has no shot. That is another reason why the trees are bad and why Flynn would be against them. But he did not leave this hole defenseless.The bunker,the slope of the green, and the steep hill on the right are enough. When the trees are gone many more shots will bound down that hill as the golfer THINKS he can execute that shot  but fails.

       You speak of the pines on #15 ANGC and #18 PB(in the landing area ?). These give ne a good chance to help you out here ,Jim. These trees are well away from the green,they knock your ball down but leave you with some chances to recover because there is a lot of room to work the ball. I do not believe they are a double hazard as#12 is.

   

      If you think an 80 yard shot out of rough over a bunker to a blind green is better than a 100 yard shot out of the fairawy with a clear view of the green then there is nothing I can say.

[mike_malone]

 Jim, Are you suggesting that the members of Rolling Green prefer stupid evergreen trees to penal rough?

[Jim_Coleman]

Mayday:
    YES.  Although I object to the form of the question.

[wsmorrison]

"You seem to have forgotten about the little old guy who hit it in the fairway on the right and has no shot. That is another reason why the trees are bad and why Flynn would be against them. But he did not leave this hole defenseless.The bunker,the slope of the green, and the steep hill on the right are enough. When the trees are gone many more shots will bound down that hill as the golfer THINKS he can execute that shot  but fails."

Mike, enough of this kind of back and forth already.  What little old guy reaches any green in two     Are there really any absolutes in golf architecture?  You seem to think you know the mind of all members of Rolling Green and you certainly speak as if you know exactly what Flynn would do.  

"Yes this is Flynn- he would neeeevvvveeerr plant trees there."  

I happen to agree with you that these trees are not a good feature but I have no idea what Flynn would say.  I am surprised that you are so convinced you do.  Did he speak to you about this?  Come on now, this is mostly nonsense.  I think, if anything, Flynn would wonder why you get so worked up over what he is for and not for.  It comes down to preferences.  He had preferences, but he varied from them and that's a good thing.  

Jim is entitled to his preference and you to yours.  My preference is to get rid of the trees and grow the rough more.  

If you ask me, in general around RGGC, I'd widen the fairways and deepen the rough much as Tom Paul advocates.
That would be a fun setup with firm and fast conditioning.  But for specifics, I'd follow my RGGC analysis exactly as written  

"Are you suggesting that the members of Rolling Green prefer stupid evergreen trees to penal rough?"

You must know the answer to that question by now.  The empirical evidence is pretty strong.  Not that we're talking about a well-informed membership.  Jim considers this in a serious way, much more serious than most.  Now, his conclusions are different than yours.  So what?  

Does that mean one of you is wrong?  You can both be right.
Please refer to Tom Paul's big world theory, I think there's plenty of room in it for the two of you.

[mike_malone]

Wayne,
  What are you smoking?  Do you have any doubt that Flynn would not condone planting those two trees in that spot on this particular course?

  I have no doubt because he had ample chance to do it,even planting trees on this hole. Some things are easy;some are hard to figure.This one and #7 are no brainers.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Wayne, you're way underrated as a thinker.  I couldn't say it better myself.
   Mayday, I've said this before and I'll say it again.  You're certifiable.
   

[wsmorrison]

Mike,

For a Quaker, you're getting a bit belligerent    Smoking has nothing to do with it.  You might give it a try though to see more than one side of an issue    

Consider Flynn's use of trees by the 11th green at Huntingdon Valley.  Granted they were there and he utilized them whereas you are specifically speaking of tree plantings, but the point is he has used strategic trees near greens to define angles of approaches to greens albeit not often.

I told you I didn't think Flynn would plant trees where they are/were on 12.  I feel pretty confident that that is the case.  But how can anyone say, especially with your certainty that they have no doubt at all?  I have to maintain such openmindedness in doing research on Flynn.  Conclusions such as yours tends to paint you in a corner.

Again, it is mostly a matter of preference as are most changes over time.  Our preference is aligned and different than that of Jim's, I've said that.  I don't take it as far as you and say authoritatively that Flynn would never do it.  I think you might benefit from visiting more Flynn courses and studying the drawings of other courses in much greater detail.  His variety and the inability to compartmentalize him may become more apparent.

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

Thanks for your comment.  I know I'm perceived as a bit of an oddity at RGGC -- not that that's a bad thing    yet I hope I'm not as odd as Mike Malone  

[mike_malone]

 Flynn seemed to struggle with this hole. At first he put a bunker on the left where the ideal landing area should be. Then he came back and flipflopped(he is from Mass). He opened up the left and put bunkers on the right. In this way he placed hazards in the landing area to add to the trouble at the green. He also added the three bunkers in the back.

    For some reason he did not feel the need for trees short and right.

       The strength of this hole is on the right side of the green---the deep bunker,the slope of the green(a few feet of the right side even slopes down the hill),and the severe hill to the right. There is no need to cover up these strengths.


    As I said before,use creativity to strenghten the other parts of the hole.

     I just think planting evergreen trees near greens is the weakest form of architectural expression.

[TEPaul]

"Re: Would Pine Valley still be #1 if......the rankings started today, instead of 50yrs ago, and the years of tradition weren't necessarily such a huge factor?  Ignoring the club, the members cache, the exclusivity, etc."

Going back briefly to Brian Gracely's initial post, it just occured to me again why PVGC probably would be and should be #1 if the rankings started today and you ignored all those things he mentioned. This, of course, is assuming you have a competent group of people ranking courses, but PVGC did have a competent group ranking it and right from the beginning---it came out of the box on top and virtually never left the top spot.

Why? There's no question that it is a unique golf course in many ways---it certainly is a unique looking course but I think the real reason it would be on top again if the rankings started today is because the course has probably the finest set of greens in the world and maybe it always will. They're the most interesting I've ever seen to approach, recover to and to putt!

I went down there a month or so ago with Renaissances's Jim Urbina who hadn't been there in a while. I went down about a year before with Gil Hanse. And probably next month with another architect or two. It's always so educational to get their particular observations on things. Jim wrote me a note saying he'd almost forgotten just how good those greens really are.

If the rankings came out today I feel compared to the courses I've seen in my life---most of the world's top ranked--that Pine Valley would be #1 and should be too---and in the final analysis because, among a number of other interesting features, it probably has the finest set of greens in the world.

[TEPaul]

"PV is great but it suffers from lack of yardage, over growth and relies on tricked up greens."

Eckstein:

PVGC is a par 70 very close to 7,000yds now (or soon to be) with 2 par 4s that're almost driveable. That's not suffering from lack of yardage. 'Tricked up greens'?? That's a pretty incredible statement for probably the best set of greens in the world!

From your ranking, I'd flip PV back to the top and go from there!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Eckstein,

How long is Cypress Point ?

And, what is par ?

How does that compare with PV's length and par ?

[TEPaul]

"TE Paul
How do you compare Pine Valley to Sand Hills?"

Eckstein:

Not well at all since I've never been to Sand Hills, so I guess I shouldn't have said what I did above.