News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Privacy on a golf course?
« Reply #25 on: March 02, 2007, 01:22:44 PM »
Would St Andrews Old be the perfect polar opposite to the Pine Valley or Sand Hills model with respect to privacy?


Peter Pallotta

Re:Privacy on a golf course?
« Reply #26 on: March 02, 2007, 01:36:24 PM »
"So it's hard to say how those old architects felt about trees being planted on originally open sites. My sense is they probably didn't get into it that much (since it was generally after the fact anyway) but if clubs did it they apparently didn't seem to resist it or recommend against it, and that apparenly included Ross, an original Scottish linksman who could be expected to resist trees on golf courses if anyone would. But apparently even he didn't."

Thanks Tom, that seems like really something to think about.

Maybe the old architects all assumed that even if trees were added, they wouldn't impinge on or infringe upon the fairways/fairway widths as they'd originally conceived them.
Or maybe they didn't see as big a distinction between treed and 'open' sites as some do today (or as, today, we might assume they did). Maybe their sense of a course's fundamental playing characteristics didn't have much to do with that distinction, i.e. it was about routing and green-sites instead.  

All just guess work on my part, of course, but it would be good to hear more views on this.

Peter

Doug Ralston

Re:Privacy on a golf course?
« Reply #27 on: March 02, 2007, 02:02:21 PM »
TEP;

I am certain you would find 'The Majestic at Walden Pond' to be too full of trees. But it is not 'tree-lined', just 27 holes on 1500(!) acres of beautiful parklands, animal life included. It is VERY isolated golf, for certain. In fact, if there were no trees, you might see some people, but never hear them  :).

I must admit I loved it, and for similar reason to Mr Gill; that is, I play mostly busy public courses, and such a quiet, nature filled round is a wonder.

The Kentucky State Park courses also mostly are laid out on large enough swaths of land to have that feel. I guess most courses cannot be so isolated, since land value is considerable.

Doug

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Privacy on a golf course?
« Reply #28 on: March 02, 2007, 02:47:24 PM »
TEP: I respect PV for everything that it is but the privacy of each hole is not one of the factors which I would put at the top of my list.  There was a time when clubs planted so many trees in order to create privacy but the result was not satisfactory at all.  Plainfield and Ridgewood removed large numbers of trees and the holes opened up sight lines, etc., which made them better.  When the land allows for routing that we find at PV then the privacy can be a benefit, but I don't see it as an important factor in designing a course.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Privacy on a golf course?
« Reply #29 on: March 02, 2007, 03:03:57 PM »
The interesting thing about Pine Valley is that the course is so well situated that it would still feel private without a single tree. The couple of places you would see other players (12 tee, 8 tee and 7 green) wouldn't change at all. The holes are really spread out width wise as well as elevation wise; think 12 and 13 down to 15, or 9 down to 11 and then up to 16.

It presently offers Peter's focused privacy while it could offer the open (wrong term, but I forget what you used) [edited in] {expansive} privacy with no trees.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2007, 03:14:12 PM by JES II »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Privacy on a golf course?
« Reply #30 on: March 02, 2007, 08:47:45 PM »

Trees (which I find myself defending more and more these days) can be wonderful and obviously natural barriers.

It sure makes Pine Valley a better place, IMO.

ARRRRRGGGGHHHH,  That's HERESY

Have you never seen the photos from the 20's and 30's ?
[/color]

(And I also like some of the intimacy of the tee boxes in relation to the greens at Pine Valley.)

- Dan


Peter Pallotta

Re:Privacy on a golf course?
« Reply #31 on: March 02, 2007, 09:04:46 PM »
JES II
Thanks; not for using my terms but because I'd never heard PV (and its greatness) described in that context, i.e. that the land is so well situated and the course routed in such a way that, with trees, it offers focused privacy, and without trees, it would offer expansive privacy. I wouldn't know the answer to this, but of what other courses could one say the same?

Doug
I guess 1500 beautiful acres would do the trick too. That sounds like a neat place: I could play lots of golf, and at the same time be in more 'wilderness' than I've ever been in my life!

Peter  
« Last Edit: March 02, 2007, 09:16:13 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Privacy on a golf course?
« Reply #32 on: March 02, 2007, 09:36:46 PM »
TEPaul,

Anything that diminshes the effect of the WIND can't be good for golf.

Ergo, trees that create seperation and privacy are not good for golf.

TOC is the posterchild for non-private or OPEN golf.

Seminole now has the same look and feel, open.

Shinnecock and NGLA also present an open field of play.

And, golf at all of those courses is better because of the enhanced value and influence of the WIND.

What you, and the other idiots forget is that golf is about the play of the game on a specially prepared field of play, and not about the whims of pansies and snobs who don't want to see other golfers, or for other golfers to see them.

It was in fact, your great, great, grandfather, Drexel Ronson Ingnatious Paul who began the fad of planting trees at a courses in and around Philadelphia.

Drexel Ronson Ingatious Paul, known as the DRIP, not due to his initials, but, due to a severe bladder problem, began planting thousands of trees at GMCC so that he would  have ample locations upon which to relieve himself, in privacy, during the course of his round.

Since he belonged to 53 clubs in the Philadelphia area, it wasn't long before the Dripper had created tree lined fairways throughout the region.

Then, he began Summering in Rhode Island, Massachussetts and Long Island, then Wintering in Florida and California.  And, where ever he went, trees followed on all of the fairways of the courses he played.

Unbeknownst to many is that fact that he was the second largest stockholder in the Weyerhaeuser Company.

All this under the guise of privacy.

In minutes, taken from several board meetings, it's noted that he claimed that the tree plantings were to "keep the eyes of the peasants from prying into the affairs of the gentry.

What was hidden from his fellow members and the public, but, widely known to his attending physicians, was that he had a huge bladder, but a tiny PP.  And that the trees were for no other purpose than to hide his tininess when he was forced to reveal it in the process of relieving himself no less than 72 times per round.   That also accounts for the phrase, "that's par for the course".   It had nothing to do with golf, and everything to do with relief.

His most hideous crime was when he joined Pine Valley, an open, Sahara like golf course. Yet, in the second year of his membership, when passengers on a passing train noticed a golfer with a pencil like PP relieving himself behind the 14th green, thousands upon thousands of trees were planted.  They lined every fairway, every open space was planted with hundreds of saplings and mature trees.

And, what did he tell the Board ?
That he was planting these trees to keep the prying eyes of the human freight that was riding the rails between Atlantic City and Philadelphia from encroaching upon the privacy of the gentry.

And now, some 80 years later, you cleverly create a diversionary thread about privacy.  A thread that is nothing more than subterfuge to obfiscate and divert attention from recent rumors of the "Paul Curse".   The ""Tiny"" Paul Curse"

Where are Tom MacWood and Dave Moriarty when you need them ?

Glenn Spencer

Re:Privacy on a golf course?
« Reply #33 on: March 02, 2007, 09:59:40 PM »
Has anyone played both The Golf Club and Pine Valley? I was wondering which one made each hole seem more 'private.' The Golf Club rates pretty high in this category, I would think.

Dan Boerger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Privacy on a golf course?
« Reply #34 on: March 02, 2007, 10:17:22 PM »
Pat -

Trees were here before golf courses.
Not all golf courses should, IMO, want to be links courses.
Trees, like wind, offer "complexity" to the game. Think bunkers in the sky.
I belong to a club that removed literally hundreds of trees and the course is significantly better for it.
Pine Valley, in my humble opinion, is the best course I have ever had the privilege of playing and the trees are an integral part of the place, (again in my humble opinion. There is nothing like watching your caddy "listen" for your ball.)
Call me a contraian! ;)


 ;) ;)
"Man should practice moderation in all things, including moderation."  Mark Twain

Doug Ralston

Re:Privacy on a golf course?
« Reply #35 on: March 02, 2007, 10:18:02 PM »
I think the entire point of the massive mounding at Purgatory [IN] was to isolate the holes; except perhaps a couple holes where it might keep the ball out of roads or private property?

Doug

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Privacy on a golf course?
« Reply #36 on: March 03, 2007, 07:44:59 AM »
Dan Boerger,

Many, if not most golf courses built after the turn of the century were built on farmlands and treeless.

Old photos of these courses reveal their open nature.

Several movements or fads developed over the last 80+ years.

Amongst them, landscape architecture on existing golf courses.  Arbor committees. Beautification committees. And perceived enhancements to the golf course such as:

Framing, providing backdrops, seperation and privacy.

The safety issue became more prevalent as golf became more popular.  That's the one issue that can't be ignored in the U.S.

I"ve seen misguided committees and green chairman plant trees between two bunkers that flank the side of a fairway.
Golfers, hitting into the first bunker had to hit sideways or try to go over the fronting trees.

I've seen clubs PLANT in any and every open space available.

Years later, their budget for leaf removal is significant, and, many clubs have resorted to an abrogation of the USGA rules on lost balls due to the abundance of leaves in the fall.

One of the worst offenses is the planting of trees behind skyline greens.

Other clubs planted trees to frame a green, and now, the roots are deep into the green creating agronomic problems, not to mention stifling air flow and blocking sunlight.


Tom Paul,

Privacy at Sand Hills is more of a byproduct of the design on that terrain rather than an objective.

The concept of play from a high tee to a low fairway to a high green promotes privacy on the fairway and the expansive nature of the property at Sand Hills does the rest.

Expansive properties inherently promote privacy, compact properties don't.

An interesting study is NGLA, a simple out and back routing where just about every hole on the outgoing nine abuts a hole on the incoming nine, yet, other than the 7th tee, golfers rarely come int contact with one another.

There again, topography, the terrain plays a critical role.

Pine Valley without the trees enjoys a similar seperation of the golfers due to the topography.

I would add Bethpage Black to the mix as well.

Try obtaining privacy at Wanamoissett or The Everglades Club where Ross and Raynor designed sporty, challenging courses on a very limited and relatively flat land.

« Last Edit: March 03, 2007, 07:46:23 AM by Patrick_Mucci »

TEPaul

Re:Privacy on a golf course?
« Reply #37 on: March 03, 2007, 08:17:13 AM »
Patrick:

That's just spooky---you nailed him to a T.

It wasn't my great great grandfather, though, it was my grandfather. DRIP is a very appropriate handle. This was a man who ran GMGC for about 10 or 12 years and his on-going agenda and issue and constant debate on the Board throughout his entire presidency was to insure that champagne be served during Board meetings. Despite his constant lobbying for it, the practice was eventually voted down forever. I also have a letter from him reprimmanding some guy for taking a dump on the 18th green after a particularly wild party (unfortunately I'm not kidding).  ;)

TEPaul

Re:Privacy on a golf course?
« Reply #38 on: March 03, 2007, 08:21:29 AM »
"Try obtaining privacy at Wanamoissett or The Everglades Club where Ross and Raynor designed sporty, challenging courses on a very limited and relatively flat land."

Patrick:

Actually, I did obtain privacy one time many years ago on the Everglades golf course but it was about 2 o'clock in the morning, and you're right it was pretty sporty.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2007, 08:22:38 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re:Privacy on a golf course?
« Reply #39 on: March 03, 2007, 08:36:54 AM »
I would dare say there may not have been a single pre-existing treed site in the entire Golden Age of golf architecture that had all its trees removed by the original golf architect.

It certainly seems true to say that trees on linksland courses was not a popular idea. However, I don't know that there was a single linksland site that ever had any pre-existing trees.

Gary Slatter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Privacy on a golf course?
« Reply #40 on: March 03, 2007, 10:27:50 AM »
30 minute tee times used to work at Indian Creek.
Gary Slatter
gary.slatter@raffles.com

Andy Troeger

Re:Privacy on a golf course?
« Reply #41 on: March 03, 2007, 12:00:38 PM »
I was impressed by the privacy one felt playing Wolf Run despite it being on a compact piece of property. Again though, the characteristics of the property made the holes I think feel like they were further away than they actually were along with the superb routing done. You could see other holes from time to time (especially on the higher points of the property), but rarely if ever did they feel overly close together.


Glenn,
Can't speak for Pine Valley (not surprisingly), but The Golf Club also seemed to have a very private feel. There's a pretty fair amount of room there to make it happen too.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2007, 12:02:51 PM by Andy Troeger »

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Privacy on a golf course?
« Reply #42 on: March 04, 2007, 03:21:07 AM »
I don't think people really want privacy on a course, but they do want to avoid interference (for lack of a better word) from other groups.

I don't like routings that are such that it is not uncommon for people on two different holes to be looking for balls or playing shots from the same area.  That's a recipe for balls dropping out of the sky at you or people "accidentally" playing your new Pro V1x and leaving you with a Top Flite.  Holes that run parallel to each other and are too close together, doglegs that can be driven through into another hole's line of play, that sort of thing.  On some courses you can hear "fore" and could be under attack from three different directions on a majority of the holes!

As common as that is on land starved courses, no wonder people say they like courses where you can't see any other golfers!  But I don't think they really want that, they just say they want that because they just don't like the negative aspects of sharing a course with others on overly small or poorly routed designs.

In fact, I kind of like routings that bring together multiple greens or multiple tees in the same area.  On my home course there's a central area where the 2nd tee, 7th tee and 11th tee are all alongside one another (and the greens for the hole before, of course)  The shots go off in roughly the same direction, but just enough different that there isn't any interference between holes except for particularly egregious shots, despite the 2nd and 11th tees having only 5 yards (and a row of pine trees) between them, and maybe 25 more yards up the hill to the 7th.

I think that some architects use privacy as an excuse to justify long drives between greens and tees by making themselves believe golfers want courses where "you can't see any hole other than the one you are playing."  The false desire for 'privacy' is just another excuse for creating cartball courses.
My hovercraft is full of eels.