[wsmorrison]

"Good photo of #12.  If the club ever decided to clear that left area from the fairway to the green all the way back to uncover the ridge and the original Crump bunkers, #12 could become one of the most striking visuals on the golf course.  "

Jamie,

They might be Flynn bunkers!  It seems likely that Flynn built 12-15 a few years after Crump's death.  The 12th is very reminiscent of other Flynn holes (1st at Phila Country for example) and would be his template hole if he has one.  They are found elsewhere in his portfolio.  I'll try to make a list.

I hope to come by and see the job that Jim (and Ron) are doing at Tavistock...sometime when you'll be there would be best.

[JESII]

Wayne,

Would you put #4 at Huntingdon Valley in that same pot with #1 PCC and #12 PVGC?

[JSlonis]

Wayne,

Would you put #4 at Huntingdon Valley in that same pot with #1 PCC and #12 PVGC?

#16 at Lancaster CC is similar in that respect as well, although a bit more narrow on the right side.

[Mike_Cirba]

It's nice to see some universal agreement here that cutting back the trees on #12 to the ridge would be an improvement visually and strategically, and would also be consistent with the intent and playability of the original hole.

In either case, I spent some time the evening of the Cup looking at the 1925 aerials in Geoff Shack's book.   It's tough to believe that cutting the trees back to their original lines on virtually all of the holes wouldn't be an improvement visually, and would also permit some more interesting attempts at recovery shots than chipping out.

I thought the most egregious example of trees affecting play are the new 25 foot talls Arbor Vitae planted tightly along the back of the new, lengthened 9th tee for protection from tee shots on the 7th.   It seems to me that this wall of trees was not only unsightly, but would lead to the type of highly restricted play that is out of character with the great course.

Jim,

I also took the time to check out Patrick's contention about trees blocking the approach from the left side of the 17th fairway.   He's correct, but only if the drive gets all the way down to the last 15-20 yards of the far left side.

[JESII]

Mike,

Take another look at those threads. I onceeded the point on the 12th hole after playing and telling you that I would have hit driver if I could see the green. Because I couldn't I hit 3 wood out to the right. One thing though, from the back tee I am virtually certain one could not see the green anyway regadless of trees. I stood there trying to see and imagine as much as possible and it just seemed like the ridge would be blocking the view. And the club is using that back tee almost exclusively these days and always have for Championship tee placement.

Another thing to remember about my position is that that is the only place on the golf course where trees will effect lines of play or strategic options other than recoveries from the sandy areas currently hidden in the trees. My argument about that was that recovery from those areas was never intended to be realistic just based on the maintenance practices down there. I would love to see the course without so many trees (and I think they are moving that direction) but I wouldn't play any hole (other than #12 possibly) if the trees were gone.

#17 - I also always said that that very small fraction of the left corner of the fairway was impeded by trees both immediately as well as at the greenside. My point is this, Is anyone ever attempting to hit their ball into that left fraction of the fairway? No, there is no benefit. On top of that, those trees only impede shots to the left corner of the green. Now tell me something, is it your position (as it was Patrick's) that a player should be allowed to miss the middle of the fairway by 20 yards and miss the ideal fairway position by 50 yards and still have a clear unencombered shot to the pin? I don't think that would have been George Crump's intent, do you?

[wsmorrison]

Jamie,

Absolutely, the 4th at Huntingdon Valley is in that same conceptual class.  So too is the 16th at Lancaster but that was not Flynn.  Flynn's hole went more or less straight with the green up the hillside just over the ledge.  It must have been a great approach.  I like the current version better and though built by the superintedent Bill Mellon in 1966, it was probably based on plans supplied by Bill Gordon who learned his trade from Bill Flynn and may have replicated that signature hole design.  There are others.  I made a list and can't find it.  I'll have to go through all the drawings and figure it out as I should add it to the book.

Call you soon.
Best,
WSM

[James Bennett]

Wayne,

Would you put #4 at Huntingdon Valley in that same pot with #1 PCC and #12 PVGC?

Wayne, JES II

I was thinking the same line of thought.  I recall A-4 At Huntingdon Valley - I laid up and pitched, JES II drove the green, and Wayne, well he probably went into the bunkers!  LOL.

For the benefit of other GCA'ers, here is A-4.  Similar to Pine Valley #12, but downhill and all laid out in front of you, enticing the different options.



James B

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

Take another look at those threads. I onceeded the point on the 12th hole after playing and telling you that I would have hit driver if I could see the green. Because I couldn't I hit 3 wood out to the right. One thing though, from the back tee I am virtually certain one could not see the green anyway regadless of trees. I stood there trying to see and imagine as much as possible and it just seemed like the ridge would be blocking the view. And the club is using that back tee almost exclusively these days and always have for Championship tee placement.

Another thing to remember about my position is that that is the only place on the golf course where trees will effect lines of play or strategic options other than recoveries from the sandy areas currently hidden in the trees. My argument about that was that recovery from those areas was never intended to be realistic just based on the maintenance practices down there. I would love to see the course without so many trees (and I think they are moving that direction) but I wouldn't play any hole (other than #12 possibly) if the trees were gone.

#17 - I also always said that that very small fraction of the left corner of the fairway was impeded by trees both immediately as well as at the greenside. My point is this, Is anyone ever attempting to hit their ball into that left fraction of the fairway? No, there is no benefit. On top of that, those trees only impede shots to the left corner of the green. Now tell me something, is it your position (as it was Patrick's) that a player should be allowed to miss the middle of the fairway by 20 yards and miss the ideal fairway position by 50 yards and still have a clear unencombered shot to the pin? I don't think that would have been George Crump's intent, do you?

Jim,

I think we're in agreement probably 90%.

Where I'd differ with you is in looking at the original course aerials.   Crump utliized tree lines, but they were mostly much further back from play than they are today.  

It therefore seems to me that Crump's intent would be to allow a player's ball to find the sandy scrub (and bunkers, many of which are in the trees on quite a number of holes) and allow the player the choice of trying to hit whatever recovery shot they believed they could pull off.

To me, that's more exciting golf than the chip out from woods, and I think Crump wanted to see that, as well.

If you check the 1925 aerials in Geoff Shack's book, I think you'll see that not only were the fairways wide (as they are today), but then the bunkers and scrub went out for awhile before one hit the tree lines.

I think that his idea of "slendid isolation" was just a little bit less cramped and overgrown than it seems to be today on several holes.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

It's nice to see some universal agreement here that cutting back the trees on #12 to the ridge would be an improvement visually and strategically, and would also be consistent with the intent and playability of the original hole.

Mike Cirba,

You may recall that I advocated that years ago, but our friends JES II and TEPaul had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the reality that the trees had become invasive to the lines of play and the lines of sight.

Better late than never I suppose.

In either case, I spent some time the evening of the Cup looking at the 1925 aerials in Geoff Shack's book.   It's tough to believe that cutting the trees back to their original lines on virtually all of the holes wouldn't be an improvement visually, and would also permit some more interesting attempts at recovery shots than chipping out.

That's also be my contention for years.
Having first played PV 40+ years ago, I'm familiar with the impact of the invasive growth that was permited.

The golf course would benefit, substantially, from an ernest tree removal program.

I thought the most egregious example of trees affecting play are the new 25 foot talls Arbor Vitae planted tightly along the back of the new, lengthened 9th tee for protection from tee shots on the 7th.   It seems to me that this wall of trees was not only unsightly, but would lead to the type of highly restricted play that is out of character with the great course.

Jim,

I also took the time to check out Patrick's contention about trees blocking the approach from the left side of the 17th fairway.  [size=4x]

He's correct, [/size]but only if the drive gets all the way down to the last 15-20 yards of the far left side.

Mike, I thought one of the objects of the drive was to get as close as possible to the green ?

And, hasn't modern equipment, hi-tech, made that all the easier ?

JES II,

The problem you have is tunnel or narrow fairway vision.
It's a common ailment amongst low handicap players.

Crump designed wide fairways at PV, he intentionally allowed for shots hit 20+ yards off the center line.

In addition, you tend to view a discussion in the sole context of the better player.

5, 10 and 15 handicap players aren't that accurate, and with the penal nature of PV, latitude must be granted, and that's one of the reasons for such wide fairways, so that the weaker player has enhanced margins of error, especially where he's about to encounter a forced carry.

At the present time, I'm not taking on any new patients.
TEPaul and Tom Huckaby have become full time pursuits, especially since their progress is slow and limited.

However, I may be able to fit you in if I can rearrange their schedules.

There's so much to teach and so little time.

[Tom Huckaby]

JES - Pat's time is indeed full - he is in nearly full-time classes under my tutelage learning the ins and outs of college football.  The poor fellow seems to think 4 games make up a season, and it ends in September.  There does remain hope for him.  But bear with him if his college football inadequacies spill over into golf course discussion.

TH

[JESII]

Hell, the college football Pat knows about may only be 4 games. When you play with those tight leather skull caps how many games could you be expected to play. They also had to play during the daytime because Benjamin Franklin had just flown the infamous kite, so spotlights were not around. When Pat was last coherrent enough to discuss college football, or golf for that matter there may have only been 4 or 5 schools in the country at the time, so these conversations took on a whole new light.

I guess when all that is considered it is no surprise that he feels compelled to re-tell the same old fables virtually on a quarterly cycle. I guess when the blue pills run out he knows it's time to start all over again, you know Pat, "the ones that make you smaller....."  

[JESII]

Jim,

I think we're in agreement probably 90%.

Where I'd differ with you is in looking at the original course aerials.   Crump utliized tree lines, but they were mostly much further back from play than they are today.  

It therefore seems to me that Crump's intent would be to allow a player's ball to find the sandy scrub (and bunkers, many of which are in the trees on quite a number of holes) and allow the player the choice of trying to hit whatever recovery shot they believed they could pull off.

To me, that's more exciting golf than the chip out from woods, and I think Crump wanted to see that, as well.

If you check the 1925 aerials in Geoff Shack's book, I think you'll see that not only were the fairways wide (as they are today), but then the bunkers and scrub went out for awhile before one hit the tree lines.

I think that his idea of "slendid isolation" was just a little bit less cramped and overgrown than it seems to be today on several holes.  

Mike,

We may be at 90%, but I have a couple of questions.
1) When you hear the stories of what Crump was trying to build at Pine Valley, what makes you think it had anything to do with giving the opportunity for exciting recovery shots from the sandy scrub areas he left unmaintained?

2) This is just an architecture question for me that referrences your above post but does not need to apply to Pine Valley alone. You state:

"Crump utliized tree lines, but they were mostly much further back from play than they are today."

Well then how are they utilized if he gave us 50 and 60 yard wide fairways and another 20 or more yards of 'designed in' hazard area in the form of outlying bunkers?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

I don't know where the quote about Crump using tree lines came from, but, I definitely don't agree with it, and apparently neither would anyone looking at the aerials from 1918 to the mid 20's.

Now that long time resident of Happydale Farms will tell you that Crump always intended to plant trees, but, when he last layed his architectural hands upon the golf course, few if any trees existed along the corridors of play, unless you hit the ball like Mike Cirba.

Yes, Yes, I was there when the forward pass was first thrown, and long before today's girlie men started wearing face guards.

In the early days, those player pile-ups always resulted in a few bloody noses, and of course, more than a few nasty bites.

Elbert McGhee, a lanky, highly flexible halfback, known as Pretzel Man McGhee, ended up biting his own ankle in an eight man pile-up, during one particularly contentious game.

[Pat Howard]

I have one slightly off topic question about the course. I was playing golf today with one of our members who plays Pine Valley every year with a few members he knows. I always ask him a lot of questions about the course and the atmosphere around the club in general; i love to hear tidbits about the place.

He mentioned that the yardage markers were different than any other course he had ever played, he even went so far as to say they were 'Coded'. Have any of you heard about this or know something more than he did? He said that they are usually small numbers like '8' or '13' when you're expecting to look down and see 147 or 182 or something. Sounds like job security for the caddies!

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

We may be at 90%, but I have a couple of questions.
1) When you hear the stories of what Crump was trying to build at Pine Valley, what makes you think it had anything to do with giving the opportunity for exciting recovery shots from the sandy scrub areas he left unmaintained?

2) This is just an architecture question for me that referrences your above post but does not need to apply to Pine Valley alone.  Well then how are they utilized if he gave us 50 and 60 yard wide fairways and another 20 or more yards of 'designed in' hazard area in the form of outlying bunkers?

Jim,

1) That's speculation on my part, but his clearing width for each hole was much wider than it is today, and he didn't plant trees where most of the sandy scrub was located, but instead left that area mostly heavily bunkered.   That's why so many bunkers are now in the trees today...do you think Crump built them in the woods?  

I can imagine that he must have known that such "iffy" shots would still give a player hope to pull off a splendid recovery, but would more often likely just let the player dig their own grave.

2) I believe the purpose of the trees he left in place were simply to create the type of isolation on each hole that he wanted, and to provide framing beauty.

...although, it seems that Patrick seemingly thinks they were put there to trap my errant drives.     He just hasn't seen me playing lately, because I'm getting ready to kick his ass back into the Polo Grounds!  

Jim, seriously...have you seen the 1925 aerials?  It's tough not to be impressed by what it must have looked and played like back then when Crump and Co. finished it.

[Sean Leary]

I have one slightly off topic question about the course. I was playing golf today with one of our members who plays Pine Valley every year with a few members he knows. I always ask him a lot of questions about the course and the atmosphere around the club in general; i love to hear tidbits about the place.

He mentioned that the yardage markers were different than any other course he had ever played, he even went so far as to say they were 'Coded'. Have any of you heard about this or know something more than he did? He said that they are usually small numbers like '8' or '13' when you're expecting to look down and see 147 or 182 or something. Sounds like job security for the caddies!

Pat,

That is exactly what it is, coded. The numbers are a code to a yardage to the front edge of the green, then they have a pin sheet that gives plus yards to the pin. A number of courses have this (Ballyneal, Merion and SFGC are 3 that come to mind), so it is quite common.

[Stuart Smith]

Several, up to 1000, trees have been cut since last year, thougalh, mostly in areas to enhance turf conditions, such as, around tees and some green complexes. Saturday's pin on the 12th was in the front left corner, any tee shot down the left side of the fairway left very little angle to the pin. The trees in the left rough on 12 poise no problem, but if thinned out where the 12th green is within sight of the back tee a drive down the left would be the norm and and tee shot down the preferred right side would be much more difficult. I believe Crump designed the 12th with this strategy in mind. Now with the new back tees let's hope the new priority is to enhance strategy at PVGC.    

[AndrewB]

I believe Crump designed the 12th with this strategy in mind.

...He [Crump] most particularly wanted the run-up shot to the green, and not the pitch.  He was determined that a player who drove to the left should not be able to pitch to the green  securely....He intended to raise the left side of the green sufficiently and to make smooth, fine turf in the front of the green for judging a running ball, to make the green as fast as lightning and sloping gently away, so that delicate judgement would be required....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()