PVGC trees

[Steve Curry]

While searching the USGA materials found this...




Steve

[PThomas]

or lack thereof!

some GCAers wish the club would do a major clearing...I guess it isn't being done because those in power at the CLub don't want to, yes??

[Mike_Sweeney]

or lack thereof!

some GCAers wish the club would do a major clearing...I guess it isn't being done because those in power at the CLub don't want to, yes??

Based on a November trip, a number of trees were marked for removal. I have no idea how many, but I am sure it will not look like that picture next July.

[wsmorrison]

Interesting that the photo is by Strohmeyer.  We have some early photographs from the Cascades by Strohmeyer.  Does anyone know if he specialized in golf course photography?  Perhaps his collection is intact somewhere.

It might be worthwhile to keep in mind that trees were cleared to find playing areas and then replanted.  Depending upon the date of the photograph (and it is far from conclusive since the scope is very limited) it may have preceded intended plantings.  This isn't to say that there is a tree problem today.  Holes 4, 12, 13, 14, parts of 15 and 16 have lost width and bunker complexes are in the trees.  Temptation and angles of play are compromised.

[Steve Curry]

Sean Tully sent me this one.  Amazing the difference.

[TEPaul]

That photo of #2 green in reply #4 I've never seen before. That one and the one in the first post is before the front of the green collapsed.

There're a ton of trees at PVGC now but they have removed some on some holes, and apparently plan to remove more.

However, for anyone on here or elsewhere who thinks the course will or should return to the treeless look in the two photos on this thread basically just doesn't understand the golf course or its evolution.

In the beginning and during the routing and the design phase trees were removed not only for playing corridors in the but also as a way of experimenting with other playing corridors that were not used (Crump and Govan's primary method of routing and design was "shot-testing"). That alone gives those very early photos a much more open look than the course was intended to have. Trees were planted early on to close up some of those open areas that were tested and not used and a number of other areas were terraced and planted with trees and vegetation to prevent the significant erosion that was occuring around the course and on various holes---eg #2, #6, #10, #18.

From 1927 to 1934 between 3,000 and 5,000 seedlings were planted EACH year in a "stability" program that was referred to as "holding the course together".

Probably the ideal tree situation at PVGC today would be for the club to simply set the goal of removing all the trees from Crump's bunkering and their shot angles.

[Patrick_Mucci]

However, for anyone on here or elsewhere who thinks the course will or should return to the treeless look in the two photos on this thread basically just doesn't understand the golf course or its evolution.

I'm not so sure that you understand the golf course or its evolution either.

Much of what could be known about PV or Crump's intentions died when he did in 1918.   Much beyond that point could be speculation at best.

In the beginning and during the routing and the design phase trees were removed not only for playing corridors in the but also as a way of experimenting with other playing corridors that were not used (Crump and Govan's primary method of routing and design was "shot-testing"). That alone gives those very early photos a much more open look than the course was intended to have.

In an age of economy and limited funds, I'm not so sure that a designer, amateur or professional, would clear trees only to replant them.

# 2 green, # 9 green and # 17 green were skyline greens.
I don't know that Crump ever intended for them to be framed with trees that were so close to the greens that they intruded upon the lines of play and created a clausterphobic atmosphere.

Trees were planted early on to close up some of those open areas that were tested and not used and a number of other areas were terraced and planted with trees and vegetation to prevent the significant erosion that was occuring around the course and on various holes---eg #2, #6, #10, #18.

Could you date, "early on" ?

From 1927 to 1934 between 3,000 and 5,000 seedlings were planted EACH year in a "stability" program that was referred to as "holding the course together".

That's 9-16 years after Crump's death.

There's no question that some areas were unstable, such as behind # 9 or fronting # 2, but that doesn't mean that those slopes or banks couldn't be stabilized by other means.

I"m not so sure that someone else decided what PV should be, long after Crump and his "Aura" were gone.

Probably the ideal tree situation at PVGC today would be for the club to simply set the goal of removing all the trees from Crump's bunkering and their shot angles.

That would certainly be a good start.

The golf course has suffered from benign neglect in the tree and vegetation department for many years, and I don't believe that that was ever Crump's intention.

One could look to the excellent tree and undergrowth removal that took place at Seminole a few years ago.

I would imagine that tees, greens and fairways deprived of sunlight and air circulation couldn't have been one of Crump's goals, so just removing enough trees and undergrowth to clear the playing angles would seem insufficient from an agronomic perspective.  Last summer should certainly add weight and credibility to that concept.