Where is the lost 17th fairway at Pine Valley?

[Paul_Turner]

I think I've confused some.  The first pic is just a cropped version of the second; done by me, to show the general green slope more clearly.

Wayne is correct, the shot is from the bowl,  You can see the cross bunkers built, I think as Colt designed, with fairway up to the green instead of waste.

The hole is routed, as it is currently.

These shots are from before the building/design of the alternative fairway.  That was done in 1921/22.  

[JESII]

Paul, Wayne or anyone else that might know,

Has the 17th green been rebuilt / recontoured or in any significant way changed since the above pictures were taken in 1916? The green appears to me radically different from today.

Jim

[Paul_Turner]

Jim

Yes, the green was recontoured to Alison's plan in 1921.  That was the final iteration.

[JESII]

Thanks Paul

I will assume that the right fairway was added in the same process as the green recontour. This makes perfect sense to me, even though it didn't survive. If the pin is to the left side of the green you have a much better approach angle than if you are down in the area of the current fairway. This seems to be an added option which may be chosen by some players aome of the time but not by everyone. If you are trying to make a three it would be worth the risk, while if a four was all that was required it might not be worth it.

TEP quoted Eb Steiniger and it would be hard to argue anything he might contribute to maintenance at PVGC over that time frame, but another potential reason for abandoning the right side and planting the trees that are there now is the train track. At the time, I would guess the tracks were no more than 40 yards or so from the fairway. Just a thought.

Jim

[TEPaul]

If for some reason there is or has been some effort on the part of PVGC to glorify George Crump and his architectural contribution to PVGC at the exclusion of what others contributed to this course we may find out about it from some of the details coming out here. I hoped that PVGC might consider restoring the old alternate fairway on this hole but that would require removing hundreds of trees all the way along the right side. I hoped they would consider restoring the old alternate because I certainly do feel the hole would play better and more interesting with it, and also it's the way the hole used to be.

But the fact is they may be more likely to restore the hole the way it was after 1922 if they thought it was Crump's hole. The hole you see in those top two photos above is the way it used to be after being built by Crump/Colt.

The fact is, though, this hole now is more Alison (and perhaps someone else?!) than any hole at PVGC. Alison redesigned the green and the 1921 Advisory Committee approved his recommendation. Alison also recommended the creation of the right alternate fairway (actually he only recommended that the fairway be extended 35-40 yards to the right not necessarily that it be a separate alternate fairway).

Alison drew two iterations of how to redo the 17th green and the bunkering surrounding it and in one of those iterations basically the entire strategy of the hole hinged on the right fairway. The reason one can say that is he recommended that the green be oriented right at the right fairway. He  said that in the text attached to his green drawing, one of which includes (in dotted line) the outline of the old green you see in those two photos above.

Basically Alison explained in his hole by hole recommendation report to the 1921 Advisory Committee that the way the hole was (in those two photos) was not of sufficient character for a 17th hole on a course of the class of PVGC. He also mentioned something else I find very interesting---and that is that in his opinion the course already had enough holes where the tee shot should be placed on the left side for the best approach to the green. I'm not sure I'd agree with that observation--but anyway....

And so Alison basically recommended the entire strategy of the hole be altered from the hole you see in those top two photos. To do that the strategy of the hole basically completely hinged on the right fairway which again, was Alison's idea. The idea was not just that a more heroic drive over the big carry bunker on the right yield a much easier approach to the green but that the safer play to the left fairway be a much harder approach. And to accomplish those things and that strategy Alison recommended (and drew) a green that oriented right at the right fairway but also on the other iteration a high left side bunker at the green that would be hard to carry from the left fairway.

Much of the way the green is now (and has been since 1921-2) is the details of the internal contours of at least one of those drawn iterations but for some odd reason the green never did get oriented to the right the way Alison apparently wanted it on the other drawn iteration. That very difficult left side carry bunker never seemed to have been done either.

What happened? Who knows. The committee did approve in their response to the Alison report that the 'carry and green' be done on #17. They also discussed the efficacy of getting all Alison's recommendations to the course done while he was there (in the spring of 1921) so he could actually 'supervise' all his recommendations.

Did that happen? Maybe not. They also discussed bringing someone in from the outside to carry out Alison's recommendations under his supervison since PVGC's maintenance crew would be too busy doing other things to get involved in the architectural alterations.

So was Alison there to supervise his recommended alterations? I sure don't know but if he wasn't who could have done them? Since it's pretty obvious at this point that William Flynn carried out the completion of construction of holes 12-15 the year before (documented from a letter of Hugh Wilson to Piper and Oakley) and since he and Toomey were members of PVGC maybe he carried out those Alison alterations on #17. (I also firmly believe that Flynn, perhaps with the help of Geo. Thomas (who returned from California) carried out the construction of right #9 green to Alison's exact specifications (the green completely matches his drawing).

But the fact is whoever carried them out it sure doesn't appear to me that they were done exactly like either of those Alison iterations because that green really doesn't orient right at the old right fairway as Alison drew it and I sure can't see some big high carry bunker that eats into the green's left side the way Alison drew it on the other iteration. If you ask me, whoever carried out the alterations to #17 it appears they sort of combined into one Alison's two green iterations that really were pretty different from one another.

It's probably all just one of the last examples of the ongoing collaborative architectural evolution that's so much the hallmark of PVGC.

(There's one other little tid-bit that shows up in the Wilson/Piper Oakley agronomy letters that although seemingly unrelated may have something to do with this PVGC final phase. And that was that somewhere around this time Alison apparently proposed that he go into actual partnership with William Flynn, but for some reason Hugh Wilson said (in a letter) he didn't think that would be a particularly good idea).

[JESII]

Tom

Would you agree that the current green is positioned very well for two distinct approach angles? I think the approach to the top right pin is great from the middle or even left side of the current fairway, while an approach to the left pins would be advantageous from the old fairway area on the right.

There would not be nearly as much risk in attempting to gain the right fairway today as there once was (assuming it was "35-40yards wide), but as far as providing additional angles of attack it seems to be an interesting possibility.

Jim

[TEPaul]

Jim;

I absolutely agree with what you say about the various best angles of attack to various pins on that green---and that's why I say the way the green was actually built back in 1921-2 couldn't really be that iteration that Alison explained where the absolute optimal way to come at any pin on that green was going to be from the right.

I think you're right that the best way to come at a lower left or front pin probably would be from the old right fairway but to a back or back right pin the best way pretty much would have to be from the left fairway or the left side of the left fairway. You know that course like the back of your hand and you know it would be pretty hard to get to that back right shelf from over on the old right fairway.

I do think it would be interesting if they did restore the old right fairway because if what we're saying really is true it would very much force the golfer to look to see exactly where the pin is on #17 when they're on #11 tee or else feel sort of like an idiot (for not doing so) when standing on #17 tee and not really knowing exactly where the pin is and then having a choice between two fairways both of which could be optimal but completely depending on the exact position of the pin!  

[JESII]

TEP

Do you know if the width of the right fairway was standard (for PVGC) or was it narrower (20-30 yds.) to add another degree of risk? Did it extend beyond the length of the current fairway to allow a shorter approach? How close was the far right edge of the fairway to the train tracks? I will go look closer at some of the aerials posted here to see if I can't answer these myself, but if you know any of these I would appreciate it.

Jim

[TEPaul]

Jim:

The old right fairway was probably about 35+ yards wide. It basically connected with the left fairway just at that little toungue section on the upper far right of the present fairway. It did not extend beyond the left fairway and that's why I said earlier if they restored it they probably should extend it maybe 30+ yards up the hole for obvious reasons (it would tempt more players to use it with more distance clubs). I suppose, if they considered restoring it they could consider cutting that big tee shot carry bunker farther up to try to recreate some of the old shot value risk of carrying it----but I don't know I might hesitate messing with such a significant bunker---but on the other hand taking it farther up the hole would improve the risk/(reward) temptations to something like it used to be. The right side of the old right fairway went pretty far over but not all the way to the steep bank down to the RR tracks.

[JESII]

Thanks for the reply, in looking at the aerials from this thread it seems you are right.

Very interesting stuff. Perhaps simply a narrower width over there would add enough risk to the shot. God knows nobody would want to be in the sand off to the side at about 80 -100 yards from that green.

I think I'll stick wiith Eb Steineger's remark about why that fairway was let go, "because the hose didn't reach it very well". Just another item that adds to the charm of Pine Valley as far as I'm concerned.

Jim

[TEPaul]

Jim:

On GOLFCLUBATLAS.com there is no such thing as "it SEEMS I'm right". I AM 100% right 100% of the time and it would be a good idea if you and everyone else on here reminded Pat Mucci of that fact every single chance you all get!

[JESII]

   

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

The similarity I was refering to was the longer carry required on # 1 at GCGC to obtain a better angle of attack into the green.

The same was true with # 17 at PV when the right fairway existed.

Wayne Morrisson,

Some of us have the ability to see architectural features, spacial relationships and the impact of tree growth or removal of trees with the naked eye while others, such as TEPaul need to have it spelled out for them, (very slowly, I might add), by others, complete with photos, etc., etc..

This is why the man needs Coorshaw.

Would you say that Paul Turner's pictures confirm my theory ?
 
TEPaul,

I think your ratios are inverted.

You meant to say that you were right 0 %, 100 % of the time.

[TEPaul]

Jim:

Those little no-neck smileys all in a row give me nightmares.

[TEPaul]

Pat, it's a sign of an excellent teacher (me) when his student (you) repeat the things I teach you about a week later as if they were your own! You've been doing that on here for about 5-6 years now.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

Yes, but in your case it's called de ja vue, all over again.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Yes, but in your case it's called de ja vue, all over again."

No kidding---it never seems to end!

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Brian

I can't let this thread die without answering your initial question:

Tom Fazio hijacked the "missing" 17th fairway and moved it down the road to Pine Hill!!!  

Steve

[TEPaul]

If PVGC's consulting architect is aware that the old #17 alternate fairway even existed I'd be mildly surprised. But if he does know it existed I'd bet some pretty steep whiskey money he didn't know it 2-3 years ago. But if he did something like it at Pine Hill maybe I'm all wrong about that.

[ian]

This was taken in 1924. I'm not sure what to make or the red or blue lines , but the image seems to suggest a date for the fairway.

[SPDB]

Craig - Sorry for the OT request, but can you post a picture of contemporary with the ones you've posted of 8 Green?

[TEPaul]

Ian:

That fairway was built probably in 1921 and came into play in 1922. The large sand area from fairway to green and the new green, surrounds and greenside bunkering were all done at the same time.

[SPDB]

Sorry - my request should have been to you Ian. Do you have an aerial shot of the 8th green from the same period?

[TEPaul]

SPDB:

It would be interesting to pin down the alteration to the 8th left green. That's a strange one in the timeline. Alison proposed a redesign of that green and I have his drawing of his proposed redesigned green. The 1921 Advisory Committee even approved Alison's plan for the redesign of #8 green but the green that's there today is not the Alison design plan. The left 8th was apparently redone by Perry Maxwell but it's not clear when he did it. My assumption is although the 1921 Advisory Committee approved Alison's plan they may not have done it for money reasons and when they finally got around to doing it they probably just got Maxwell to do a redesign he came up with. This probably happened at the same time Maxwell redesigned the left 9th green at some point after the right 9th was built and in play.

[SPDB]

Tom - Am I correct in my recollections that the 8th Green (Left) was 2-3x today's size (extending perhaps to and through the left edge of the right side bunker)? I came across a picture this past week that refreshed my memory. What's the evolution?