Pine Valley

[David Stamm]

I just recieved in the mail a club history of this great course that was published in 1982 (I couldn't find Finegan's for a reasonable price) and was struck by something thumbing through it. In it, many experiences are given as to the enormous scores by both members and visitors there. 20+ strokes on par 3's!

Now I know I'll probably be cruxified for this, but doesn't a course which such penal characteristics go against the design philosophies of many of the great early architects of the 20th century? I've never had the privilege of playing the great course, so I have a very shallow knowledge of the actual characteristics, and I know the course is revered for the exacting test it presents. But boy, some of these stories are amazing.

I just seem to remember Dr. Mackenzie for example stating the course should be enjoyable for the duffer as well as the accomplished player. I by no means am critizising the course, I just think it's interesting that when Crump had invited some of the architects of the day to see it, all universally appraised it as the best in the land, and yet, because of the brutal test it presented, it seems to go against what many of those same architects believed what sound design ideas were.

[John Kavanaugh]

This may surprise you:

How good was The National? Bernard Darwin, the leading golf writer of the time, was duly impressed. He said, “If there is one feature of the course that strikes one more than another it is the constant strain to which the player is subjected to; he is perpetually on the rack, always having to play for the flag itself, never able to say to himself that ‘anywhere in the bunker will do.’” It figures. Macdonald believed that the tougher the course the better. (A larger than life standing statue of C.B. Macdonald in the library of the clubhouse provides tangible evidence of a monumental ego even today.)

[Phil McDade]

David:

Tom Paul has insights into this (probably among other regulars here...) Crump apparently wanted an ultra-tough test partially as a way to prepare Philadelphia-area golfers for competition among other golfers of the era around the country, and esp. the Northeast. TEPaul mentioned something about this in a recent thread (sorry -- don't recall the thread name, just the observation.)

[JESII]

JK,

Are you sure MacDonald thought "the tougher the course the better"? I am not challenging it, I am wondering if that theme will play out in Bandon at all.

[John Kavanaugh]

JK,

Are you sure MacDonald thought "the tougher the course the better"? I am not challenging it, I am wondering if that theme will play out in Bandon at all.

Surprising isn't it...I got that from the following review of Bahto's book.  I have held the book but have not read it..

http://www.golftodaymagazine.com/0309sep/c_b.htm

[JESII]

Really interesting. Thanks for the link.

Did MacDonald ever build a course for the public marketplace? Maybe that market was not necessarily present then, but I wonder if this full theme is played out, how it will be received at a public/resort facility. Sure, Bandon is different from Disney in the clientelle it attracts, I understand that, but I'll be curious to see this play out.

[BCrosby]

CBMacD's design philosophy was much more interesting than hard course equals good course and harder courses equal better courses.

David -

The first time you play PV you are struck by its width. The fw's are enormous and call for all sorts of strategic choices with virtually every shot.

OTOH, PV's hazards will crush you. They are as penal as they come. Recoveries around greens are often impossible. Especially on the par 3's.

It's a unique course that combines - like no other I've played - almost contractory architectural philosophies, sometimes on the same hole. And does it so well you don't notice at first. As the English like to say, PV always make you feel wrong-footed. An amazing place.

Bob  

[TEPaul]

David Stamm:

Much of the penality of PV that you hear from those stories really doesn't have all that much to do with the actual architecture of the golf course.

You'd probably need to go see it to understand just what I mean.  

Some of those stories of huge scores on some holes at PV have a lot more to do with stubborness and lack of common sense than they do with the actual architecture of the course.

More than perhaps any golf course that I am aware, a decision to advance the ball two feet in some direction may be much wiser that trying to advance it 100 yards or more in some other direction.