[wsmorrison]

Correct, Pat.  That is Merion West.  I'd say certainly the bunkers were there first although that variety of tree grows pretty slowly, or so I've been told.  Regardless, the tree comes into play today and has for many years.  My outlook has always been, since playing in Scotland many years ago, whatever happens, happens.  Play on.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

The trees you speak of effect the left 10 feet of the fairway when playing to the left 10 feet of the green.

They affect far more then that.
Your being disengenuous because you've intentionally diminished the actual impact and impediment that the trees create.[/color]

I have no sympathy for you if you mis-hit a tee shot 20 yards from the ideal target (which is still left-center on a 50 yard wide fairway) on a 220 yard tee shot and cannot hit a direct unencumbered approach to the pin.

Your position is so one dimensional, typical of those who can only view architecture in the context of the best players.

Why would you expect a 10, 15, 20 or higher handicap to execute such a precise tee and approach shot ?

Especially an approach shot from an awkward sidehill, uphill lie to an elevated green, surrounded by bunkers and closeted by invasive trees.

Try thinking in terms of ALL golfers, not just the better player.   It will expand your horizons and broaden understanding of architectural intent.

Right now, you just don't get it.[/color]

Your argument that the land steers the ball that way is faulty based on your argument that expecting a player to hit a draw into that left pin is absurd because the ball is below the players feet. So which is it Pat, does the ground move right-to-left or left-to-right? The answer of course is both. In the right side of the fairway it moves right-to-left, and in the far left corner it moves left-to-right, sort of a funnel effect.


Had you read my posts carefully, you would have seen that I had previously stated the configuration of the fairway-DZ.[/color]

There is no degree of firmness that would steer a ball that lands on the right-to-left portion of that fairway over to the left 10 feet of the fairway. You've got this one wrong, I promise you, perhaps someday we'll be there together and I can explain it to you, but until than let's just hang this one up.


Once again, your limited, one dimensional approach is flawed.
A golfer, who hooks his tee shot, upon hitting the right to left slope of the fairway, will see his ball run toward the left side of the fairway.

And, it's not a 10 foot window we're talking about.
In combination with the trees at the green it's much greater then that.[/color]
 
As to the total package you're advocating, let's revisit your position in that prior thread. You and Mike Cirba argued that the trees impede on strategic angles. I disagreed. You used #17 as an example. You're wrong.

NO, you just don't grasp the concept and have narrowed your thought processes to the better player.[/color]

I stated that there was not one shot you would TRY to play differently because of the trees.

Of course you would.
If there weren't any trees on the left side of the fairway and trees choking off the approach to the green, if your ball was on the left side of the fairway, a fairway that slopes left to right, you'd hit a fade into that green.

YOU CAN"T DO THAT WITH THE TREES THERE

In addition, almost every mid to high handicap player will hit a fade off of that lie.

THEY CAN'T DO THAT WITH THE TREES THERE.

Please, tell me that you understand that.[/color]

At many courses there is a calculable advantage to playing for one side of the fairway or another. Seminole is a great example of that (and also a course we both know, which helps the conversation).

Agreed, provided that the golfer has the ability to detect and execute.   Most mid to high handicappers don't possess both of those abilities, and, it's mostly mid to high handicappers who play those courses, so you can't view the issue solely in the context of the scratch golfer.[/color]

At Pine Valley the penalty for missing a fairway at Pine Valley is so great that the strategic advantage gained cannot possible make up for the risk of failure to hit that spot.

That's why I asked you to name one hole that offers a real clear and distinct advantage to a player approaching a green from an extreme edge of the fairway as opposed to the center of the fairway. You named a couple at the time and, while I disagreed with them, we didn't spend any time on it.


So much of your premise depends upon the length of the tee shot.  Just look at # 1 at PV.  Being in the far right edge of the fairway makes the approach shot shorter on the dogleg.

And, I wouldn't call the fairway on # 15 from 200 yards to the green, wide.  It's very narrow, with the terrain sloping severely left to right off of the right side of the fairway, with those cedar trees impeding recovery for errant shots.[/color]
 
The fact that the center of each fairway is the target for each tee shot plays on two things;

Isn't that the case on almost every golf course ?[/color]

first, each and every shot at Pine Valley is a do or die in itself (isn't that a big part of the greatness?),

With wide fairways I don't know that I agree with that.
Certainly, many of the approaches have the do or die flavor.

# 2, # 3, # 5, # 7, # 8, # 10, # 14, # 17 and # 18 are essentially do or die, with the other holes allowing for shots hit short or run-up shots.  There isn't much in the way of lateral bail out areas on the approaches.[/color]

second, the notion of strategic options being available with no trees does not hold water.

Sure it does.
If there were no trees the approaches listed above would still be do or die shots, and the remaining holes would still have their short or run-up options.[/color]

Unless "strategic options" is synonymous with "get out of jail free" when you've missed a shot. This point is more where I think you're coming from, and that's the crux of our disagreement.

Being in a narrow trench bunker, with a substantive lip, hitting to a treacherous green, as Mike Sweeney had to do, is hardly a "get out of jail free, card" if the trees didn't exist.

It remains an extremely difficult task.
The presence of the intervening, invasive trees compounds the problem and makes it gimmickie, like the windmill at the miniature golf putt putt course.

Pine Valley doesn't need gimmickerie in order to present a championship challenge, and the invasive trees planted long after Crump's departure and at the whim of those who couched their planting as an effort to stabilize the golf course, and not to invade and encroach upon play.[/color]

The unmaintained bunkers Tom Paul describes support my point to you that these bunkers were not intended to allow easy escape.

Noone has ever disputed that.[/color]

I understand that having a tree in your swing while in a bunker is not a great thing and I cannot think of an architect (including Crump) that would advocate that, but that's not the point I am arguing.

It is the point, you just don't understand it in the applicable context.

If, by your own admission, you can't think of an architect, including Crump, that would advocate that condition, then your refusal to support removal of those trees that interfere with one's swing while within the confines of a bunker, is contrary to Crump's intent, as well as every other architect's, and common sense.

Those bunkers, especially unraked, present a demanding, championship hazard.

They don't need to be gimmicked up by inserting trees and tree limbs for the purpose of impeding a golfers swing, or the flight of his ball.

Difficulty is inherent in their location and configuration.[/color]

Perhaps somehow you'll get this at some point, but strangely I doubt it.

It took me in excess of two years to get TEPaul to begin to see the light, I'm hoping you'll be able to halve his time, but, I'm begining to question the time table.

Where do you guys get your drinking water from  ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

This is another case of benign neglect.

What options are available to a golfer whose ball comes to rest in the bunker, in the middle of those branches ?

Now ask yourself this question.
If the USGA held a championship on those holes, do you think a request to prune or remove the tree would be a priority issue ?

The limbs resting in, and impeding a golfers swing need to go.
As to the rest of the tree it should go as well.

Now before the TEPaul's and Jim Sullivan's of the world respond in their one dimensional way, consider this.

How familiar are you with drip lines and roots ?

Do you think that the roots have invaded the bunker lines ?

Do you think a golfer should suffer a broken wrist while trying to extracate his ball from the bunker ?

Does the club carry ample liability insurance ?

For surely they've created an accident waiting to happen, vis a vis, benign NEGLECT.

The tree has to go.

And, a club's pediree doesn't give it an exemption.
Architecturally or legally.

[JESII]

Pat,

I think your post #76 lays serious doubt as to your actual reading comprehension. That's probably to be expected though isn't it?

[TEPaul]

"Why would you expect a 10, 15, 20 or higher handicap to execute such a precise tee and approach shot?"

Patrick:

Crump did not design PV for the higher handicap golfer---he enjoyed torturing golfers like that.  

'A 1915 story affords some insight into Crump's mindset....A prominent Philadelphia businessman with whom Crump was playing plugged his ball high in the face of one of the deepest bunkers. Short and stout he struggled laboriously to the top of the hazard and called down, "George, why in the name of common sense did you build these bunkers so high? If I fall off here, I'll break my neck." Replied Crump, "Now you've got it. We build them so high that all the dub golfers would all break their necks. This is a course for champions, and they never get in trouble."

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Why would you expect a 10, 15, 20 or higher handicap to execute such a precise tee and approach shot?"

Patrick:

Crump did not design PV for the higher handicap golfer---he enjoyed torturing golfers like that.  

I don't know that he EXCLUDED the higher handicap vis a vis his design of PV.
I do know that he meant it to be a championship test for the best players, but, so are a lot of other courses, yet, those courses accomodate the higher handicap.  [/color]

'A 1915 story affords some insight into Crump's mindset....A prominent Philadelphia businessman with whom Crump was playing plugged his ball high in the face of one of the deepest bunkers. Short and stout he struggled laboriously to the top of the hazard and called down, "George, why in the name of common sense did you build these bunkers so high? If I fall off here, I'll break my neck." Replied Crump, "Now you've got it. We build them so high that all the dub golfers would all break their necks. This is a course for champions, and they never get in trouble."

I would imagine that Crump wanted to create a golf course to test the best players in the area and of his time, and he succeeded in doing so.

However, if one could research the handicaps of the original members from 1918 to 1930, I would imagine that the average handicap was far, far removed from scratch, and as such, as a realist, Crump had to understand that his creation also had to accomodate golfers whose credentials didn't place them at the highest levels of competition, his members.

The golf course had to be member friendly from the outset.
 
I think that's one of the reasons for the wide fairways and an absence of a substantive number of trees.

While a number of members at PV are highly skilled competitors, many are high handicaps, and, it's been that way for forty or so years that I can recall.

The golf course has the flexibility to accomodate a wide variety of players, that's one of its inherent virtues.

I've seen high handicap players play the golf course to less then their handicap because they drive in the fairway, hit their second short of the green, pitch on, and two putt.

Granted, noone's doing this when the greens are 13, but, plenty are doing it when the greens are 6-8, and perhaps even at 10.

Pine Valley's merits aren't one dimensional.
It's a golf course that requires the aerial element, but allows for great margins of error short of the putting surfaces, a surface not always targeted as the object of the approach shot.

Think about that.

Why do you think you were so successful there over the years ?[/color]

[tonyt]

Those arguing that some of the potential tree removal at PV is merely for aesthetics I think are misguided. Forget their effect on the golf ball and the path of likely shots, even from bad misses. The scale of the hole, the ability for judgement to be confounded without perspective giving visual aids and the potential intimidation of making the golfer feel smaller or part of a less intimate and more grand obstacle course are among the many changes in the experience, thoughts and subconscious playability of the course.

One cannot assert when looking at the old open photos and the modern ones where the trees may not be actually as in play for the golf ball but still there, that a golfer playing both courses won't feel it a different playing experience and invoking rightly or wrongly a different mindset and set of challenges in play.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tony,

I'd agree,

When one doesn't have an anchor or lighthouse it's easier to drift into trouble.

[TEPaul]

"I don't know that he EXCLUDED the higher handicap vis a vis his design of PV.
I do know that he meant it to be a championship test for the best players, but, so are a lot of other courses, yet, those courses accomodate the higher handicap."

Patrick:

Trust me, George Crump definitely did not design Pine Valley to architecturally accomodate high handicap golfers. You don't seem capable of taking anyone's word for much of anything but I can give you Crump's own words on that subject. But even with that you'll probably attempt to say you know better what he wanted to do than even he did.    

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

When it comes to George Crump and his ideas, the design of PVGC, and the subject of high handicappers (members or otherwise) being architecturally accomodated there you simply have a whole lot to learn.

Crump's particular part in Pine Valley, the club, is really intersting and probably totally unique.

Here was a man who bought the place himself---eg essentially he owned PV. Although he may not have at first intended to do so, he essentially paid for the construction of the course himself.

There's little question that the entire direction and vision for PVGC changed dramatically in the first months following the purchase of the site. Originally, they were interested in a course for winter play and then they were going to allow 18 different men to design a hole for the price of $1,000 entry fee.

That was dropped almost as soon as the club was actually organized in April of 1913. One has to remember that none of these people had ever had anything to do with designing or constructing a golf course. And the club did not at first hire a professional architect to lay out and design the golf course. That would come with Colt perhaps six months or more after Crump and his friends had a go at it.

But the interesting thing about Crump was that even though he essentially owned PV and was paying for its construction he was definitely not the czar or dictator of the place. Of course he could've been if he wanted to be but he clearly did not want to be.

Here's a man who owned the place and was basically paying for it who was not the president of the club and was not even an officer of the club. He wanted nothing to do with the membership drive either, and he had nothing to do with that. All he wanted to do is create the golf course.

So, the fact that PV had members who may've been higher handicappers did not concern Crump in the slightest regarding what he was going to do with the course and its architecture.

To Crump the course was for champions, period, and that's definitely the way he designed and constructed it.

It has always been of particular interest to PVGC that right from the very beginning higher handicappers appeared to actually enjoy getting the tar beaten out of them by the course, particularly since it was dedicatedly not designed to accomodate them.

That theme actually carried on until less than ten years ago when for the first time PVGC decided to use more than one set of tee markers.

If you are now attempting to say that Crump designed the golf course with a view to accomodate higher handicappers for any reason whatsoever, that only shows you have no understanding of the creation of that golf course or of George Crump.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The results, the design of the golf course speaks for itself.

It clearly reflects an accomodation to the higher handicap through the width of the fairways and the lack of centerline hazards.

Crumps demand was away from the ground game.
The aerial game reigns supreme at PV, and that's where championship play is accentuated.

While one set of tees were used, they were a lot shorter then what exists today or ten years ago.

And, green speeds weren't at 13 in 1918-1930.

If you think that Crump thought that only "Championship" golfers would trod his fairways, you're the one out of touch with reality.

[TEPaul]

"If you think that Crump thought that only "Championship" golfers would trod his fairways, you're the one out of touch with reality."

Patrick:

Is it impossible for you to read anything correctly?

I never said that George Crump thought only "championship" golfers would trod his fairways. For Christ sake man, he was playing golf with a high handicap golfer when he made the remark himself that the course was designed for champion golfers and if it killed high handicappers that was fine by him.

And I've said to you a number of times that PVGC has always been somewhat bemused (including Crump himself) that high handicap golfers seemed to like to play the course even if it beat the hell out of him.

I never said high handicappers weren't supposed to be there, only that Crump did not design the golf course to accomodate high handicap golfers.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()