Pine Valley #1...probably not...

[JeffTodd]

Jordan,

I’m usually a lurker here because I simply do not have the experience or exposure to the great courses that most of the members possess. However, I’ve had the pleasure of walking Pine Valley as well as the privilege of playing it once. Before I had ever set foot on the property I had tried to learn all I could, just like you. I had read as much as I could on the course, I had seen pictures of all of the holes, and I had viewed aerial photos of the routing. By the time I went to my first Crump Cup I thought I had a good idea of what Pine Valley was about; I was very, very wrong.

The research I had done had given me a two dimensional understanding of the golf course, but the majesty of Pine Valley lies in its third dimension, and you can’t grasp that from a book or a scorecard. The land is bold and flowing, and the course lies on the land in a perfectly comfortable and amazing way. You can look at a photo and see the strategic options that exist, but what you can’t see is the way the gentle slopes of the fairways often reward the aggressive player but subtly punish the easier route. So much of Pine Valley’s greatness lies in its ability to provide subtle thrills found in the tiny details. You just have to see the place to believe it.

As to your points, I don’t think a drivable par four is a must have for a great course. Pine Valley has several short par fours, but those holes do not let the golfer off the hook just because they can hit a long drive. In fact, each of those holes tests a different aspect of your game in addition to the long drive. If there is one drivable hole, it’s #12, and in my opinion it’s the only hole on the course that isn’t great. I found it to be unremarkable, and quite easy. But like all things at Pine Valley, there is a certain magic to it. It’s as if you were meant to have a moment to enjoy your snack from the halfway house, which, of course, isn’t halfway at all.

The rest of your points have been discussed, and it’s sufficient to say that I, like most of the others, do not agree with your assessment. That said, I did find it odd that a course that tests so many different aspects of one’s game does not ever demand that the player move the ball from right to left off the tee. If you are a straight hitter, or play the ball from left to right, then you’ll find that most holes set up quite nicely for you. But if you are a right to left player there really is no discernable advantage to be found on any hole (unless, ironically, you are trying to drive #12).

[TEPaul]

JeffT:

Very fine and very descriptive post there about how different PV can seem when first seeing it even after studying it fairly comprehensively beforehand as you did. I like your phrase that you thought the course sat 'very comfortably' on its land. I never thought of it that way but it's very true.

And I was insterested in your mention of the subtle slopes and folds of some of the fairways. One of these days I'll get to it but I'm going to try and figure out as closely as possible what exactly was made and what wasn't.

That'll be a little tricky because the contour lines of the "blue/red" topo hanging in the clubhouse are so faint today as to be virtually indistinguishable. But I was amazed how clear the contour lines are on Crump's original stick routing probaby used from March 1913 until Colt arrived in May/June 1913 where it appears they broke out a fresh one and began using that (perhaps using it together for a week).

Although I'm not computer savy with these applications I guess I can get Craig Disher or someone to just digitally put the blue/red one on top of the initial Crump stick routing topo and then everything that was made will begin to come up for me when I can really follow the contour lines and their numbers in specific detail. On some holes that will be very interesting to know (I can't wait to see what the 1st green's landform looked like naturally!) although my sense is that ground was just used as it was a whole lot more than some of us may suspect, other than some of the greens, obviously.

There may be an interesting reason those subtle contours are so good, or used so well, though, and that is that Crump and Govan were apparently endless "shot-testers". Apparently throughout the five years of the construction of it during Crump's life he and Govan endlessly tested every aspect of the course by constant "shot-testing". One account says hitting hooks and slices and every other kind of shot. I don't think it's too much of a secret that Crump did not like the sliced shot at all, particularly the sliced drive (he may've felt it was the common shot of the higher handicapper and not the good player and of course he felt he was building a course just for the good player) and tried to do things on some holes, like the 1st, to really penalize it.

Constant "shot-testing" is a pretty interesting way to "design-up" and identify shot-values and the subtleties of them but it was a more common way of doing it back then than it is today or in modern times certainly, and there's little question it was Crump and Govan's way bigtime of constantly analyzing the subtleties of the course as it would be in play. Govan, BTW, was a really good player from St. Andrews, and I have a feeling his ability to hit really quality shots was an important reason Crump hired him away from his other club, St David's, over on the Philly side of the river.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff and Tom:

Your posts highlighted to me what I think is one of the weaknesses of modern golf course design -- a lot of courses are not just analyzed in two dimensions, they are actually designed in plan view with precious little regard for anything else.

Architects almost always have topographic maps, and I dare say if people on this board could read them well, then someone looking at a topo map of Pine Valley would have a 1000% better understanding of the course than someone who had only looked at pictures or the routing plan.  Indeed, you could have played Pine Valley many times and still probably wouldn't understand it as well as if you could read the topo map -- why, for example, they haven't lengthened the fourth tee until now.  [There is something like a 30-foot cliff at the back of that tee, but most people don't see that kind of stuff when playing because it isn't in front of them.]

However, some modern architects basically ignore the topography of a property and just figure they will reshape everything to suit their needs.  They may not ignore it completely -- they don't put the tees in the lowest spots and the greens on the highest -- but they don't look at the contours and think they're going to use that sideslope in the fairway to reward a draw off the tee, they look at the sideslope and think they'll have to regrade it, or lower it for better visibility of the green.

Sadly, I don't have the topo map of Pine Valley or I would post it.  I do have them for a bunch of great courses, and I learned a ton from them.

[Adam_F_Collins]

Architects almost always have topographic maps, and I dare say if people on this board could read them well, then someone looking at a topo map of Pine Valley would have a 1000% better understanding of the course than someone who had only looked at pictures or the routing plan.  Indeed, you could have played Pine Valley many times and still probably wouldn't understand it as well as if you could read the topo map

Tom D.

What do you mean by being "able to read" a topographic map? How does one learn to do that? Is it that complex? Do you mean just seeing it and really being able to visualize what it translates to in terms of 3 dimensional landforms?

[Michael Hayes]

Tom Doak, I think I speak for many in saying that it would be really neat to have you post a topo or two of those great courses.  I myself would love to get a better feel for reading topo maps and identifing golf features out of them...

Thanks

Michael Hayes

[Tom_Doak]

Michael:

There are some copyright problems with that, I'm not really even supposed to have most of the maps I have.  Plus they're pretty big, I don't think you would get much out of them on the computer screen if you were looking at more than 2-3 holes at a time.  But I will think about it a bit, and if I can find one that's fair game, I'll post it later.

I would use my own courses but the maps for those are the natural topo and not the as-built of the course.  Of course that's how we lay out a course, but you learn even more from seeing finished courses to see where all the drainage goes.

Adam:

Yes, there is a big difference between being able to read one word at a time, and being able to make sense out of a paragraph.  Same with topo maps.  Most people would be able to learn, but only with a fair amount of practice.

[TEPaul]

I wonder what topo map of Pine Valley TomD would be speaking of. The one in the clubhouse has contour lines that are way too faint now. But the one in Rich Christian's office (Crump's intial stick routing), it's no longer in his office BTW does have contour lines and their elevation numbers that are very clear. As far as I know that's the only topo of PVGC that shows the place before a course was built on it. The Colt map we just bought does not have contour lines on it.

[Mike McGuire]

Tom Doak -

Are any basic things you can share regarding reading topo maps? The first thing you look for. Tricks , tips etc,  

Maybe it would make a good thread . I have a postable ( i think) topo of my course (a lot of elevation change) done by Langford in 1930.

[Kyle Harris]

Mike,

Find the high point on the map and the low point, to get your bearings. Knowing which way is up is 75% of the battle. About half my golf architecture class at PSU read the maps backwards at first, which rendered some interesting design ideas.  

With rare exceptions, "V" contours almost always point uphill. Drainage usually goes down the V.

Be sure you know your contour interval. 2 foot and 5 foot seems to be the norm for golf course renderings. The contour interval is the distance in elevation between two contour lines.

A good way to visualize how a topo map works is to hold your hand flat on a table, and draw concentric rings around each of your knuckle. If two rings intersect, draw a line around both knuckles... then make a fist. You instantly go from 3D to 2D...  

[TEPaul]

I used topo maps on a couple of properties for literally hundreds of hours. I doubt I could've gotten the hang of the contour lines (the way they flow etc) if I hadn't done that.

Frankly, if you're going to spend that much time on a site I really don't see that you even need to refer to the contour lines on the map. Why bother because what you're looking at on the ground just is what it is!

I used those topo maps about 90% for just distance anyway. The maps I used were the fairly standard 1"=200' which gets pretty simple demarking things distance-wise (for instance a good drive of 268 yards is 4" on the ruler, a short par 3 is 2", a pretty long par 3, 3", a short par 4, 5", a 400yd par 4 is 6", long par 4, 7", medium par 5, 8" and a long par 5, 9". You get used to that reference pretty quick and my little clear plastic 6" ruler always got a huge workout when I was out there--I went through a lot of those things.   And after a while just looking at all kinds of elevation changes on land long enough and referring to them on the topo you do learn what all the configurations of contour lines on a topo map mean. However, even having done that for hundreds of hours on a few sites I have a feeling if I just picked up a topo map of a property I'd never seen before I'd probably have a hard time relating to the elevation changes on it and what the land really looks like at least in detail.

I'll tell you something I'm pretty sure about regarding PVGC and those topo maps Crump and Colt used. It looks like you can figure out what Colt's modus was with those contour lines and it looks like with Crump in the beginning anyway he really didn't know how to use one very well.

Here's why I say that. For me when I tried to really reference those elevation numbers on those contour lines, they'd drive me nuts and the reason was sometimes you have to follow a contour line halfway across the map before you find the elevation number on it. So what I would do with my topo maps is just spend about a half hour with each one before I used it and write the elevation number on each contour line about every inch or two so I could find the damn elevation wherever I was without having to trace each contour line half way across the map to find its elevation.

It looks to me the way Colt did that at Pine Valley was to just take a couple of contour elevation lines on the PV topo which were probably most representative to him and he would trace all the way along it with his blue pencil. That way he could obviously reference or ballpark what elevation he was at or near more easily.

With Crump, on the other hand, at least in the early spring of 1913 and a couple of months before Colt first arrived when he was doing his initial stick routing of the course, it looks like Crump either wasn't using the elevation lines on the topo or wasn't that sure how to use them easily.

Here's why I say that. On the top of that initial stick routing is one of the few notations I've ever seen anywhere from Crump himself. What that notation says I think is pretty indicative of a couple of things:

It says:

"Am not sure if the greens are
marked on this map as I marked
them on the ground."
                       G.A.C.

What that means to me is Crump was out there routing and siting everything on the golf course himself and if he was marking the tee positions (perpindicular lines) the LZs (dots) and the green sites (circles) himself on the map or even if someone may've been doing it for him out there it's pretty obvious from that notation that Crump was never all that sure that where he was standing on the property for some green site, for instance, was actually where it was getting marked on the topo map.

That tells me Crump was both doing almost all his own siting and routing right on the ground by just looking at it and that he wasn't that good at understanding the contour and elevation lines on a contour map at that point or even knowing where various spots on the topo map were on the ground.
 

[Kyle Harris]

TEP,

Any mention of the benchmark in the middle of the 7th fairway at Pine Valley... Elev. 162 feet?

With the railroad there, Crump would have had a few USGS Benchmarks to work with for elevation purposes and cross-referencing on any USGS topo maps. As per my latest set (1984 revision) there's one in the middle of 7 fairway (or at least in the treeless corridor shown on the map.

As per my Orienteering dork website, that benchmark was placed sometime during the 1900's.

[Garland Bayley]

...
There are some copyright problems with that...

As a former educator, I would remind everyone that there are exceptions to copyright rules that allow copying small portions for "educational purposes". I consider this website an educational medium. Therefore, if Tom were to copy and post the topology of the fourth hole to demonstrate the cliff he mentioned, it is my understanding that would be completely within the limits of the law as long as he gave complete attribution to the origin of the material.

[ChipOat]

Jordan Wall:

You got your comeuppance already on this thread plus a pretty good explanation of why Pine Valley is ranked #1 and, in my opinion, deserves it.  I would add to the hosanna's you've already heard by saying that PV is the only course I've ever played that does not have what I consider to be a single weak hole.  Even the one hole that strikes me as sort of architecturally "normal" still looks too visually wonderful to be ordinary and isn't anything close to "weak".

Since you ARE guilty of laying down the gauntlet without having a clue what the courses in question are really like, you need a further review of your facts besides those you've already received, e.g. #13 at PV is, in fact, a very long par 4, #15 is, in fact, a par 5 that can be reached with 2 excellent shots by a very long hitter and #12 is, in fact, driveable - maybe the others are, too.

1) #7 at NGLA is a par 5.

2) #10 at NGLA usually plays rather short because of the firmness of the ground and the prevailing wind.  350 yard drives are not unheard of and a long hitter will often play something like a 9 iron for his approach.

3) I'm not sure where you got your information that #4 at Pebble is driveable.  400+ yards uphill is a driveable par 4??

Your judgement that Pine Valley has a weak finish, has been addressed by others regarding #'s 17 & 18.  To say that Pebble's finish is stronger than PV's is, in my opinion, totally arguable even if you've played both courses (I think PB's finish is way overrated and that 15-18 at PV is a very strong finale) and insulting if you haven't - which you haven't.

The question you asked - "why is Pine Valley #1?" is a legitimate post.  To opine as you did at the outset does not, with all due respect to The Emporer, deserve any slack.  Please see any Pat Mucci post to Tom MacWood regarding a discussion of courses you've never even seen, let alone played.

On the other hand, if you were just trying to get people's attention, it worked!

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Chipoat, et. al.,

By what criteria would Jordan Wall evaluate your answers ?

He's never played Pine Valley, but has determined it lacks substance, to the degree that it can't be acclaimed as the
# 1 ranked golf course.

Why are you wasting your time with someone who has no frame of reference and/or personal experience with respect to the architecture and the play of the golf course ?

He's clueless when it comes to the golf course, and incapable of understanding your responses.

He needs to read "Scotland's Gift",  first.
And ask questions, second.

[Jordan Wall]

Jordan Wall:

3) I'm not sure where you got your information that #4 at Pebble is driveable.  400+ yards uphill is a driveable par 4??

On my scorecard of Pebble Beach, the 4th plays 325 from tips, 308 from blues, and 295 from whites...Driveable???  I'd say so

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Jordan Wall:

3) I'm not sure where you got your information that #4 at Pebble is driveable.  400+ yards uphill is a driveable par 4??

On my scorecard of Pebble Beach, the 4th plays 325 from tips, 308 from blues, and 295 from whites...Driveable???  I'd say so

Does your scorecard show the change in elevation from tee to green ?

Or, in your estimation, doesn't that effect the play of the hole ?[/color]

[Jordan Wall]

Pat,

I know the hole is uphill, but think about this.  The hole was designed to give the player the option of driving the green, and is a classic risk reward hole.  If you do try driving the green, which is driveable, then you risk going right and into the ocean, leading to at least a bogey, or going into one of the greenside binkers, and I've heard the sand is very hard,  not soft at all (which could create the problem of going into the greenside bunker on the OTHER side of the very small green).  Also, the if the playing conditions are firm, as they should be, then you can bounce the ball onto the green, which is open in front.  From what I have studied and from what I know already, this hole was meant to give the player options, and that includes driving the green.  It is definitely driveable if it is downwind, and in certain playing conditions, it is driveable anyway

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Jordan Wall,

The opening to the 4th green is extremely narrow with bunkers guarding the entrance.

At 325 to 400 yards uphill, I don't know if anyone has ever driven that green.

You can go in the ocean with a 4-iron or a driver.

Risk/Reward says trying to drive the green is a bad play, even if you could do it.

Fog tends to keep those fairways damp, hence, I don't think fast and firm is in harmony with Mother Nature.

[Chris Kane]

Jordan, how many people can hit the ball 327 yards?  Even less can hit 327 UPHILL.  A 327 yard hole is drivable for less than 2% of golfers.

My advice to you would be to limit your analysis to courses you've seen in person - making brash comments without based on a topo map or scorecard makes you look very foolish.  I made similar mistakes many times in my early days here.

Instead of making controversial statements which ruin your credibility, how about asking questions - there are dozens of very knowledgable people here from whom you can learn a lot.

[Jordan Wall]

Pat,

It doesnt matter what club you hit, you could still go in the ocean, whether iron or driver.  But if you are trying to drive the green then you have better odds slicing it into the water with a driver over a four iron.  And even though the gap is narrow, it is still a gap nonetheless and just gives the gambling player another option.  I'm not saying it is the best move to go for broke, but that is the whole point of a risk reward hole man  

And also, dont you think think driving a 325 yard uphill hole is more probable then someone cutting a corner on a 425 yard hole, especially when there is so much trouble around the fairways and if you miss your screwed (Pine Valley #1...)  I honestly doubt more people have driven the first at PV then the fourth at PBGL but I have been wrong before

Chris,

Ok, I will ask a question because I am more then willing to learn some stuff and I by no means want to seem foolish  

This is my question... There are three sets of tees (excluding reds) at PBGL and if you are not a low HCP then you should probably play the correct ones.  And even still, many people will not drive the green, especially at 325 uphill (or 308 or 295 ).  But was the fourth hole meant to test the gambling golfer and let him try to drive the green if he wanted?

I have always felt that if the architect gives the oppurtunity to drive a hole, then it is driveable for at least someone.  If the fourth was not designed to be driveable for anybody, then I will drop it and say it is not driveable.  But I think that should help you get my perspective on the hole  

And also Chris, I will stop with analysis on courses I havent played.  The original thread that I posted was supposed to help me get some ideas of what makes a course great, but I now know that an essay that makes people angry and seem like I am trying to be difficult (though I am not is not the best way to go.  Thnaks for helping

JW

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

The fourth at Pebble is a short drivable hole.  The entrance was narrowed sometime before the '82 Open.  It was a very easy hole before the pot bunker was built.  There are plenty of college kids who have the firepower to carry the green--incidentally, it is not more than 15 feet uphill.  Yesterday, I watched the best junior in the US carrying his 3 woods @ 290.  Last week he bettered the RSF record by 2--Littler, Stadler, and Phil have called the course home--my buddy DP had the record --65.

[Jim Nugent]

Yesterday, I watched the best junior in the US carrying his 3 woods @ 290.  Last week he bettered the RSF record by 2--Littler, Stadler, and Phil have called the course home--my buddy DP had the record --65.

Who is he, Robert?

[Steve_ Shaffer]

RMD

Are you talking about Jim Flick's protege, Philip Francis, of Scottsdale?

Steve

[ChipOat]

Jordan:

If the consensus here BY THOSE WHO'VE PLAYED THE COURSE is that #4 at PB is actually driveable from the back tees by "normal" long hitters (whatever that means), then I stand corrected.  I've played the hole 3 times from the back tees and have used as much as a 6 iron for my approach - admittedly into a 2+ club wind.  On that particular day, I found it difficult to carry the fairway bunker that I previously believed to be just an annoyance for anything other than a totally foozled tee ball.  I'm no big hitter but that hole sure didn't ever seem driveable to me from the tournament markers.

We've determined you've never played Pine Valley.  Have you ever played Pebble Beach?

Patrick:

You've surely had more direct exposure to the new breed of college age mega-hitter than I.  Even at that, I am somewhat dumbfounded that it would be possible to drive the first green at PV from the back part of the tee box.

Even if it's basically do-able, I would be prepared to argue that it's about as low-percentage a shot as I can think of.  To try and miss by even a small degree is to invite an unplayable lie or worse.  I can't think of a single safe place to miss that green except short in the fairway.

As to trying to drive #8, that also seems like an extraordinarily low-percentage play.  At least on #12, you can miss long, right and (mostly) short and should still have a fairly routine second shot which could very well be uphill, to boot.

[cary lichtenstein]

I very much doubt that #4 at Pebble was designed to be driveable. No one hit the ball 325 yards in 1925.