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

[wsmorrison]

Matt,

If the architectural intent of PVGC is different than other courses, why should the same concerns apply?  I don't see how PVGC gets a free pass because of its reputation.  It should only be judged on its own.  

To me, the analysis should involve intent (which, as Tom Paul has discussed, is well documented) , as built and as is.

Have other courses been influenced by PVGC?  Yes, to their detriment.  Courses with different characteristics and architectural intent have suffered when they tried to apply PVGC methods to their own courses.  PVGC shouldn't be held accountable for misinterpretations at other courses.  There are some tree issues that compromise the playability on some holes at PVGC but not so much from the concept of segregation of holes.

[Matt_Ward]

Wayne -- slow down partner.

My point was on the proliferation of trees and how the original strategic qualities have been blocked or impaired because of their growing role.

Why does PV get a free pass on this when other courses are rightly IMHO cited for their inability to get a true handle on what's happening? The tree dilemma is a real one.

Wayne -- you and I see the situation at PV in two different ways. I believe the tree situation at PV is an issue. Yes, there have been improvements with a few holes -- why the delay at #14 continues to astound me, to name just one example. You also mentioned in your original response to me what other remedies should be explored to deal with the tree issue.

Wayne -- you proud yourself as a historian of sorts -- tell me how the original pictures of PV compare to what you see today? Do you believe PV would increase its stature if there was a return to those times versus what you have now? I can think of how Oakmont returned to its original intent versus the claustrophobic bent on having trees simply grew and grew over the years. In my mind -- Oakmont is now much better because of it.

[wsmorrison]

"Wayne -- you proud yourself as a historian of sorts -- tell me how the original pictures of PV compare to what you see today? Do you believe PV would increase its stature if there was a return to those times versus what you have now? I can think of how Oakmont returned to its original intent versus the claustrophobic bent on having trees simply grew and grew over the years. In my mind -- Oakmont is now much better because of it."

Again, what does Oakmont have to do with PVGC?  They are 2 different courses with 2 different design intents.  Oakmont was meant to be far less treed and it was returned to its intent.  PVGC is meant to have segregated holes and it does.  One way to look at the tree issue at PVGC is to consider the segregation of the holes.  You continually bring up other courses when PVGC was meant to be unique and should be; they want the holes to be segregated.  That's what the man with the vision and money wanted and that's what the club wants today.

The other way to look at trees is the effect they have on playability  I agree that there are some problems and I listed the ones I think are most egregious.  There aren't that many.

I don't include the 14th hole.  It may look better without the trees but it really doesn't effect playability.  The wind effect might be slightly greater without so many trees however, most of the ball flight is well above the trees and is not so great a factor.

[Matt_Ward]

Wayne:

The issue is one of tree growth and its impact on the course design. Oakmont is a very successful proactive position on what trees did to that storied layout. Clearly, Oakmont and PV are two different courses -- the issues is one that deals with the invasion of trees on their respective layouts and how each layout approaches that topic.

Wayne, you keep mentioning the word "segregate" to describe the nature of the tree growth at PV.

It's a bit beyond "segregration" and is more in tune with hole obstruction. Let's be clear -- the very nature of the terrain at PV prevents people from hole-hopping when playing a particular hole there. If the trees were eliminated the player would not get some sort of easier time with the core ingredients that shape the layout.

Like I said before -- look at the pictures of PV in its "original" state -- do you see / view those pictures as being the more preferred status of PV when compared to the tree-imposed layout you see today? Simple question -- yes or no?

When you say there aren't that many trees that impact the architecture -- the very fact that there is speaks to the issue of what is being done now and most recently. Courses deemed bulletproof as PV is -- should not have issues impacting upon their strategic greatness.

And, if trees do impact upon its original character should not PV face the music when compared to those courses that have aggressively handled the tree question and been more faithful to their original intent?

I'm not a historian and simply want to understand how people who place a great degree of respect for the past jive things that are different in today's setting.

I see the 14th, to name just one example, as a classic example of a hole far afield from its original intent. The trees engulf the very nature of what was there originally. Yes, air currents that can influence shots have now been toned down because of the bowling-alley effect the trees create.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jaka B & Mike Cirba,

Would you both concede that the routing at Friar's Head is superior to the routing at Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes ?

Wayne Morrison,

I can't disagree with Matt on the "free pass" issue.
Let's face it, certain clubs and architects enjoy "most favored nation" status, and few are willing to be objective and intellectually honest when it comes to discussing them.

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

Who is giving Pine Valley a free pass?  I don't recall any examples.  Tom Paul, who probably knows PVGC better than anyone I know, has critiqued the course.  I posted a number of holes where the playablility is impacted by tree proliferation.  Maybe some on here give PVGC a free pass, I must have missed examples.  I expect there is a diversity of opinions on this site and some are more informed than others.  

I know that some on here feel certain architects are close to perfect.  I haven't seen examples where a majority feels any course is perfect.  No course can be.  What courses on this site are given "favored nation status?"  Every course I can think of has had their detractors, even Sand Hills and Friar's Head.  Maybe not Pacific Dunes though  

Matt,

Where did this notion of "bulletproof" come from?  It seems an artificial device to support your allegaion that people turn a blind eye to some maintenance practices at certain courses.  As I stated above, I cannot recall examples where PVGC is constantly given a free pass.

[Matt_Ward]

Wayne:

I asked you a straight-up question before in a previous post and you have skillfully tap-danced around answering it.

Let me repeat one more time ...

Like I said before -- look at the pictures of PV in its "original" state -- do you see / view those pictures as being the more preferred status of PV when compared to the tree-imposed layout you see today? Simple question -- yes or no?

Wayne -- let's be clear I've not posted any artificial device as you erroneously claim. PV is acclaimed to be #1 in the world by a fair number of people -- (not I however as I see Shinnecock as the top bananna) and I have to wonder if the "tree argument" used against other courses is simply given short shrift or worse yet amnesia when it concerns PV. Wayne -- when an argument is used against other courses and it fails to resonate with the king at the top of the throne (e.g. PV) that by my definition is called a "free pass" in my book

[wsmorrison]

Matt,

I did ask you in response to your original picture question what you mean by original pictures.  Look it up in my previous response.  If you mean pictures taken around the finish of the 1st 14 holes or up until the course was a full 18 holes,  some holes look better with less trees others do not.  I also think the improvements in the waste areas over time look a lot better than they did in these original pictures.

The trees on the peripheries of holes are generally OK to me.  They don't come into play and in some cases are an improvement such as back right on 3 that hides the house up on the hill, the trees on the right that obscure Dormy House on 4 and the trees on the left of 5 that obscure the house.  The trees on 5 give a narrowing perspective of the target and make the hole seem a bit harder than if it were wide open as in the earliest days.  The penal nature of the surrounding trees are an important factor for this hole.  It was far less intimidating looking (from photographic evidence) when it was more open in the early years.  Number 9 definitely looks worse with the corridor of trees, however with the homes on the left, it is probably better that they are less visible.  Likewise 10 looked better without the surrounding trees but it is clear that Crump wanted to keep all the holes unto themselves.  The original plan (I believe) and early photos show there was no Devil's A**hole bunker.  The hole has been changed and I'll take the surrounding trees that don't come into play as long as the bunker is there.  Does anyone know who put the bunker in there?  I didn't see it in some early drawings I've seen nor in Alison's writings.  As for 14, it did look nice without so many trees but isn't there a road behind the hole?  It may be that isolating this hole blocks the view of the road.  Trees have grown up along the far right of the waste area on 16 but that carry is impossible anyway.  The flat level lie that used to exist on 17 is no longer there due to tree encroachment.  The area beyond the righthand bunker was fairway and it is now shrub and trees.  I guess it plays a bit harder the way the hole is laid out today.

I think there is something positive to be said for the aesthetics that fewer trees would provide.  The best example are the trees that proliferated behind the 2nd green.  The old skyline effect has been compromised and looked much better in the old photos.

As in any course, there have been good and bad developments along the way.  PVGC is not perfection but it is pretty darn close.

PVGC may be ranked #1 by a number of rankers and magazines.  That, as you know, means little to me.  I think it is one of the great courses in the world but this does not merit a free pass.  It is what it is, and I love it.  It may be the greatest experience in golf on one of the world's best courses.  

However, I do believe, as you do, that Shinnecock Hills is the best test of golf today and it is my personal favorite.  See, we can agree  

[wsmorrison]

"Wayne -- when an argument is used against other courses and it fails to resonate with the king at the top of the throne (e.g. PV) that by my definition is called a "free pass" in my book"

Matt,

Let me try a final time to explain what seems so obvious to me.  Pine Valley is so unique that it is not wise to argue that what is good for other courses (Yes, even an Oakmont) is good for Pine Valley, especially when you are arguing against Crump's principal of isolating golf holes.  That's what he wanted and that's what the club wants.  But, I guess you know better.  There is some compromise to playability at various places around the course but to me it isn't as bad as you claim.  Just because many think it the #1 course in the world doesn't mean it has to be perfection.  What is?

[Brian_Gracely]

What was Crump's rationale behind having "hole isolation"?  

[TEPaul]

"Frankly, why would PV get any "free pass" on the tree issue when the same point has been raised on a number of other courses that are equally highly rated?"

Matt Ward:

Are you aware at all that PVGC has been removing trees on the course for the last few years and plans to continue? What are you talking about a "free pass" for? Free pass for what? I'm not turning anything around, I'm simply telling you the truth.

BrianG:

I guess Crump didn't want to see golfers on other holes.

[T_MacWood]

For those familar with the history of PVGC, when was its architectural high point?

[wsmorrison]

Does anyone know when and by whom the Devil's A**hole bunker was put in?  Early photographs such as those found on pg. 50 of the 1982 PVGC history book (one during hole 11 construction era and another a bit later) show no bunker.  

[TEPaul]

"For those familar with the history of PVGC, when was its architectural high point?"

It's architectural high point? That's an interesting question since so little has changed over the years architecturally at PVGC, certainly compared to many of the other world class American designs. Should the decades long tree encroachment at PVGC be considered "architectural" or "maintenance practices"?

First of all, it's slightly difficult to pin down when PVGC was actually "finished" architecturally, as is the similar case with it's great counterpart in the Philly district across the river, Merion East.

Personally, I'd consider PVGC to have been architecturally "finished" around 1922 about ten years after it was begun while Merion East was probably architecturally "finished" about 20 years after it was begun. To say the least, those two slow architectural creations were unusual by normal architectural standards but not unlike their "Pennsylvania School" counterpart in Pittsburgh, Oakmont, that was in the process of architectural "improvement" by it's creator(s) for perhaps 45 years.

Is this type of evolutionary architectural output on a golf course an asset or a liability to the course's overall architectural quality? I'm sure the opinions on that question will always be varied. The answer to that question, though, is probably best answered by those most familiar with the courses, those that play them either daily or in tournaments. I feel the quality of golf architecture best reveals itself in what some refer to as "the test of time".

PVGC was always world famous in architectural circles even as it was in the midst of slow construction in the teens. We certainly have a wealth of architectural documentation from numerous sources to prove that fact.

It seems to me, having lived here for thirty years that PVGC reached a certain pinnacle in the playing awareness of its architectural greatness during the Walker Cup in 1988. A large part of that fact was due to the extraordinary maintenance process, Dick Bator, one of the world's best superintendents, put the course though. Previous to that point the course constantly suffered from conditioning problems of one kind or another, mostly turf problems.

As I've said on here many times, in my opinion the tree encroachment problem at PVGC has a certain relatively obvious solution. Just remove the trees that are in or in the line of play of any of Crump's original bunkering. The interesting thing about PVGC is most all those old Crump bunkers are still very much there and most all of them have actually been maintained in the normal course of architectural evolution. All that remains to be done is to return them to visibility and functional play by removing any tree from their "lines of play".

I personally feel that the best possible prescription for tree management at PVGC would be for the club to very closely analyze the Dallin aerials from the mid 1920s in combination with a close study of the archives as to what original tree clearing at PVGC (by Crump) meant in specific detail. The point being there were a number of areas cleared of trees that were the result of Crump both analyzing prospective holes and various shot testing on those prospective holes that ultimately were never used. Those areas did need to be closed back up with trees but the holes that actually opened for play should be taken back tree-wise to those aerials. If they did that basically the course would have tree separation between the holes and the intended width of hole corridors that Crump intended architecturally. Again, his constructed flanking bunkers and probably basically constructed sand areas define those parameters in those 1920s aerials.

If that was done tree-wise the club would probably also have to strip some vegetation from those architecturally intended sand waste areas to expose the massive widths of sand. This is the very same thing that Shinnecock should do on a few of its holes, namely, #5, #6 and #8. Those massive areas of rugged sand areas were all basically constructed and intended by the original architects, we certainly know they were at Shinneock as they show up on what we call "construction instructions" on the individual hole drawings. For some reason they were apparently forgotten about on both courses. Maybe they never understood the architects actually intended them to be that way.

[TEPaul]

"Does anyone know when and by whom the Devil's A**hole bunker was put in?"

Wayne:

I don't, and I don't know who does. It wasn't Crump although it showed up not long after his death. It was probably the result of J.A. Brown early on or superintendent Jim Govan or perhaps Eb Steineger perhaps in the early to mid 1920s. Maybe Alison had something to do with it but it isn't mentioned in his hole by hole recommendation report.

[TEPaul]

"For those familar with the history of PVGC, when was its architectural high point?"

Tom MacWood:

Do you feel you have enough familiarity with PVGC to have an intelligent opinion on this question of yours? If you do I really do wonder how that could be if you've never even been there. But if you do have an opinion you feel is valid I'd love to hear what it is. If you've never been there at all, though, I'd have to assume what you're concentrating on is solely the "look" of architecture, not necessarily the way it may've played or does now.

[Paul_Turner]

Where does Crump explicitly state that he wanted isolation?  Was it a third party indicating his wishes after he died?

I think anyone would have a hard time arguing that the course would not be grander with a few more open vistas.

[Brian_Gracely]

Tom MacWood:

Do you feel you have enough familiarity with PVGC to have an intelligent opinion on this question of yours? If you do I really do wonder how that could be if you've never even been there. But if you do have an opinion you feel is valid I'd love to hear what it is. If you've never been there at all, though, I'd have to assume what you're concentrating on is solely the "look" of architecture, not necessarily the way it may've played or does now.

TomP,

Considering the access you have to PVGC, do you get some sort of twisted pleasure by knowing that TomM has never been there?  And wouldn't it save your fingers years of wear and tear by extending him an invitation next spring to actually walk the course and hash this out like men, over drinks or 4irons?  

[TEPaul]

Brian:

It doesn't give me any pleasure at all that Tom MacWood has never been to PVGC or Merion. As he continues to make very specific suggestions and continues to present specific opinions about both places I simply continue to ask him how well and how accurately he really thinks he can say some of those things if he's not only never played those course but never even laid eyes on them. Does that sound illogical to you in some way? I'm not the only one who feels that way, and certainly not just about him but about anyone who tries to appear particularly informed about some place or its architecture they've never even seen.

I'd love to ask Tom MacWood to see Pine Valley and Merion but I don't belong to either.

[T_MacWood]

TE
I don't recall making any specific suggestions or opinions of PV and Merion...what were some of my opinions and/or suggestions?

[Matt_Ward]

Wayne:

I appreciate your answers, but my point was a very simply and consistent one -- tree issues at PV have evolved well beyond the early times -- I use as a reference point the early photos illustrated in the "Pine Valley Golf Club -- A Chronicle" book (dated 1982).

When I see PV in its earliest days the great vistas the course presented is really mindboggling for the sheer views and overall "terror" the course provides to those playing there. When trees started to encapsulate the course the very large sense of where you are at and the uniqueness of the site is really held in check because of there growing role.

The nature of the qualities of the site can truly be seen and appreciated from early times. Oh my -- I'm beginning to sound like Tom MacWood -- yikes! Good examples of this type can be seen with the 2nd (p. 33), the 5th (p.40), the 6th (p.42), the 8th (p.47), the 9th (p.49), especially the 10th (p.50), the 11th (p.52), the 12th (p.54), especially the 14th (p.59 & 60), the 16th (p.66), and clearly the 18th (p.68 & 69).

I don't doubt the club has removed trees -- I played the course this past summer -- and clearly there has been some improvement. However, the involvement of trees on the general scope of the course is still IMHO a good bit beyond the original intent of what the course was many years ago.

When a course is "segregated" (your word) with trees it's highly likely -- if not guaranteed -- that the encroachment of trees will eventually impact the ORIGINAL INTENT of the design. For God's sake I sound like one of those right wing defenders of original intent of the Constitution.

Wayne -- there are plenty of classsic courses that over the course of their development allowed the invasion of trees to dominate the landscape and sadly, in many instances, compromise -- even modestly -- the original intent of the course.

What's so wrong in acknowledging the fact that even the great Pine Valley -- the Xanadu of all that is golf -- followed that same trend and that it has had an impact on what was envisioned by George Crump and his initial team of collaborators who finished the course?

Wayne -- let me also mention your point on Crump's desire to isolate holes -- how does one even remotely believe that removing trees will somewhow provide for the holes to be less than great? I mean removing the trees would not allow golfers to hit onto the wrong fairway and still make a good score on the hole actually being played. PV never permits those type of shortcuts.

I can't verify or confirm what Crump's original intent was -- I don't know if you or anyone else can either. Clearly, the desire to remove trees is a good one -- whether it be Oakmont, Winged Foot or heaven forbid the renowned Pine Valley. The issue of tree removal is not about the individual personality of those respective coursses -- they are different no doubt -- but the core ingredient on what role trees should play is still a common aspect worthy of debate.

I have heard from a number of people who were positively enthralled with PV, however, were taken aback by the vast amount of lumber that dominates the landscape. To be fair many of these people had these comments prior to the '04 golf season.

Pine Valley is one of the elite courses in the world -- I just think that even the proclaimed #1 course in the world is fair game for discussion and appropriate constructive criticism when warranted. If the tree discussion is good for others than PV is no different IMHO.

[TEPaul]

"I can't verify or confirm what Crump's original intent was -- I don't know if you or anyone else can either."

Matt Ward:

"...pines, with a good share of cedars, form the tree growth of the place. To these have been (added) hundreds of evergreen saplings from the (White) pine, Scotch fir, hemlock, etc. They...in this sand soil. In exposed places, they planted to the north side of tees and greens, to have a comfortable protection against the cold winds of the winter season."

Does that sound like a man who didn't want trees between the holes? What do you think he was doing, planting them to see if they'd grow just to cut them down again? That was written in 1914, by the way. It's probably resonable to assume that since he worked on the course constantly for the next three years until he died he may not have stopped planting trees when that article was written.

What one sees in some of those very early photos, again, apparently was not the way he intended the course to look tree-wise. That's certainly not to say the course didn't become encroached upon by overgrowth, but again they've been doing something about that for a few years now. Again, in my opinion, the best possible thing to do would be to get tree encroachment out of the outside of all Crump's orginal bunkering and intended sand waste areas and the course and the tree situation would be ideal for the way that course was very likely intended by Crump to be. If they did that one still would very rarely see golfers on other holes which is what he wanted.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brian Gracely,

You missed the point TEPaul was trying to make, in his response to Tom MacWood.

With Tom MacWood never having seen Pine Valley, by what standards and in what context would he be able to evaluate any answer that TEPaul or anyone else supplied ?

I've never played Sand Hills, never seen the property before and after the golf course was built.

Hence, I'm TOTALLY UNQUALIFIED to evaluate comments and assessments regarding its architecture and playability.

[SPDB]

further to Brian's point, another observation:

What would a round at Pine Valley, or even a close study of the course, tell Tom MacWood (or anybody) about the course's "architectural high point."¹

____________________________________________
¹ This observation assumes the architectural high point is not the day/month/year of Tom MacWood's visit.

[T_MacWood]

I think Paul Turner asks a good question regarding Crump's supposed quest for isolation...is this a case of the present PV administration taking a friend of Crump's observations out of context, to prehaps rationalize the uncontrolled encroachment of trees?