New back tee at #4 at Pine Valley?

[Sean Leary]

I had the great fortune to play at Pine Valley this weekend, and the caddies told us that plans for the long rumored back tee box on 4 are under serious consideration (whether true or not, I don't know).  A number of trees where the tee would be (across the road) were marked as if they were to be removed.  It seems it would would  take a tremendous amount of dirt to build that tee if it does come to fruition, and I think it would change that hole considerably (as 13 has been changed as as well) as many players will be hitting long irons from the top of the hill.

Overall I was very impressed with the new tee boxes (since I was last there), especially 13 which changes that hole dramatically more than I thought it would.

[Bryce Mueller]

as a +4 handicap who played the course for the first time this summer, i can only talk about the course with the new tees, but i was SHOCKED at how long the course played compared to what i heard. A tee on 4 would be great, because i was able to hit 3 wood down to the bottom which totally changed the hole compared to how it was supposed to play. Overall though, that course plays really really long when u think about how many holes make you want to use a 3-wood or iron for accuracy...

[Willie_Dow]

The best way to play that hole is down the road, to the right.

I had a sand wedge to the green.

[JSlonis]

I'll be at PV on Wed. and will see if I can get any info on that tee on #4.  I've heard multiple versions of the story over the past couple of years...on again, off again, on again, etc.

I honestly have looked down at the proposed site several times and just can't visualize how it'll properly fit the hole.  If it does eventually go in, I'm sure they'll make it work.  One thing's for sure, it will some hike from the 3rd green.

It is a shame that the current topography doesn't make extending that hole easier.  I'm sure Crump never envisioned the hole as a 3 wood & 7-8 iron.

Willie,

That's a sneaky route.  Do you aim at the new "dorms" and hit a little hook?

[Mark_Fine]

I am an advocate of adding length to older courses when and where it makes sense, but that new back tee on #4 would look ridiculous.  It does not fit in with golf course and would look like a disjointed appendage.  Next thing you know, someone will want a new tee across the road on #5 as well     Even some of the new staircase tees like on #3 and #14 are starting to look goofy and very resorty.  

[TEPaul]

It's been under consideration for a while now (a few years). It would be down and to the right and create more of an uphill dogleg right tee shot. It might add 50+ yards to the hole and the idea of it is to recapture the originai intent by Crump (and Fownes) to keep good and long players on top of the hill to create a demanding long approach to that green. That was dedicatedly the original design concept of the hole and this would go a long way to acheiving that again. It would be a pretty long walk down and back and across the road to the short course. It seems like the club has been somewhat ambivalent about doing it but that new tee has had to deal with some environmental issues as the tee would be close to and probably across a small water situation. If it is done it would probably be somewhat surprising looking at first because of the necessity of clearing out trees up the right to make room for the shot. The tee length additions in the last few years seem to have been popular and well received with the long hitter/good player contigent as evidenced by the comment of a plus handicapper above. With those tee length additions on various holes many of Crump's intended shot values have been returned and somewhat returned. The prospect of that 4th tee addition was the single factor that made me decide to resign from the Crump. I realized from back there I could probably hit my Sunday best and still not reach the fairway as with the new tee on #18. My letter of resignation stated that I felt someone like me had basically become deadwood in the Crump and my place should go to someone far more competitive and worthy than me. The response to my letter from the president was an extremely nice one and he stated that more players should probably voluntarily do what I'd done.   Golf is changing and every golfer should realize when they've become an old fart and should willingly bow out for someone more worthy. Time goes on.  

With their recent tee additions and this one on the 4th my suggestion to Pine Valley is that they should keep tee markers on those back tees at all times and not just use them in something like the Crump. I think they should also suggest that the good player contingent who play the course should get used to using those tip tees whenever they play the course. I believe this would automatically up the perception of the course and nix this idea that it has become obsolete due to technology. Pine Valley was perhaps the last golf course of which I'm aware to play their course daily with one set of tee markers. With these new tee additions I think they should now keep a minimum of three tee markers all the time including tee markers from these new tips all the time. Again, it would automatically up the perception of the challenge of the course which should be the intent. That's what Crump wanted and that's what Pine Valley should want too, in my opinion.

[JESII]

I am not sure I can imagine what would make this proposed tee "look like a disjointed appendage" as Makr Fine suggests, but it sure would make the hole difficult.

A couple of questions for those of you that think this would be a bad idea...is the green end of the hole appropriate for a long iron/hybrid/fairway wood approach?   Does the current tee shot feel restrictive when the ground is at least a little firm?    What could be wrong with trying to restore an original design intent?   Especially in a world of  restoration "specialists"...

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Good thoughtful answer!

Jim,
I'm sure you have seen where they are proposing putting that new back tee on #4.  What do you think it would look like?

I am all for restoring original design intent when and where it makes sense.  But sometimes the possible solutions to try to do so can get goofy!  Would you advocate a new back tee on #5 at PV so the "original design intent" can be restored there as well?  

Note: I just played Oakmont and the new back tee on #8 (makes the hole play 288 yards which effectively restores the original design intent of the hole).  The room was there to do so without it looking like an added appendage.  Some of the other extentions I would beg to differ with.  

[JESII]

Mark,


I think it would look like a tee 70 yards back and up the hill...I don't buy the whole routing as if it were a walk in the park philosophy...

#5 is still a monster par three...when played from the back portion of the tee it is 220 to the front edge...what would be the need to make it longer?

Back to #4...is the green end of the hole appropriate for a long iron/hybrid/fairway wood approach?  Does the current tee shot feel restrictive when the ground is at least a little firm? [/i]

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
I agree, it would look like a tee 70 yards back and up the hill  

#5 at PV is tough at 220 yards to the front edge but so is #8 at Oakmont at 245 yards.  Why stretch Oakmont's #8 out to 288 yards?  Isn't it the same argument as being put forth about #4 at PV - return some of the original design intent.  Same goes for #4 at Augusta National.  Some of these added back tees work and some don't.  

[TEPaul]

Sully:

The green and green-end on #4 most certainly is designed for a long shot from the top of the hill and seemingly more so than any other green and green-end at PV. Matter of fact, this is no guess at all---the intended concept, shot value and shot requirement from the top of the hill are all over the recorded archives of the club from both Crump (indirectly through his two closest friends there, Father Carr and W.P Smith) and also from W.C. Fownes' comments on the hole during the work of the so-called "1921 Advisory Committee" that was charged with finishing off the course after Crump's death.

I've looked at the shot from back there (the proposed new tee) and as I said it does make the tee shot seem slightly more of a dogleg right variety (somewhat like what the sensation was at first with the new back tee on #18) and it certainly is a shot needing to be way uphill (as is the tee shot from the original tee). To be honest, if Crump's initial routing iterations on some holes had been used PV would have a few other holes requiring tee shots needing to be hit way up over hills and ridges (his initial iterations on his initial #6 and #13). It seems like Crump must have favored the uphill shot both on drives and approaches (he planned to make the approach to #11 way up hill also to mimic the 2nd hole approach shot, only more demanding).

Furthermore, I did not fully apprecriate just how wide and also long that ridge fairway is on #4, It's about 50-70 yards wide and about 60-70 yards deep depending on the line taken. The diagonal aspect of the downslope at the end of that fairway ridge is frankly strategically brilliant---eg the closer one takes his tee shot to the right side the easier it is to get over the ridge!

I'm not sure if the club is completely aware of what Crump's (and Fownes later) design concept was on this hole but the documentation is definitely there that says their idea was that the good golfer at best should be required to hit a very long shot (they mentioned a wood) for the approach shot.

There is documentation at PV of what the hole by hole shot values and shot requirements were supposed to be in Crump's mind. This kind of thing was apparently most important to him as he seemed somewhat fixated on not just a good balance on the course but also precisely where the  incremental balance and variety should come on the course, and that may've been the primary reason he got sort of stuck with the last four holes to be finished---eg #12-#15. In other words, he wanted to finish off that precise balance and variety on those holes and he had kind of gotten himself into a box in that area as to how to accomplish it.

Alison also made a recommendation of a left front bunker to eat more into the left approach on #4 to intensive the requirment to keep the tee shot to the right but I do not believe the club executed his recommendation back in 1921-22 even if the record shows his recommendation was approved by the "1921 Advisory Committee".

[archie_struthers]

 

Jim and TEP


having spent a long apprenticeship at PV, I for one would vote yes on the new tee on #4.

I can remember pre-equipment changes (mid to late 70's) when four still played as a longish par four.  Not for Tom  Watson, but for world class amateurs, and all the seniors.

Never have forgetten the wonderful long to middle irons Ed Tutwiler (great am from Indiana)  used to hit here. They were some of the most beautiful long irons I have ever seen and his distance control was unreal..

He would ask how it was playing, and if firm would kick the shot in off the fairway, as was his preference. The hole still gets this way in Crump competition, as you both can verify.  The great thing about the design  under these conditions is having the "cajones" to knock it over, knowing the chip from behind is better than a putt from the front edge>


thats my answer and I'm sticking to it! LOL


ps   didn't spell check my espanol

[JESII]

Some of these added back tees work and some don't.  

I haven't seen the 8th at Oakmont...what is it about the new tee that doesn't work?   Why would you assume the same issues will aflict #4 at Pine Valley?  



Archie,

Couldn't agree more...on each issue, especially the chip-back play.



TEP,

One reason I would suggest contributed to the club not migrating that left bunker across the front of the green there is the proximity of the clubhouse...my friend Lenny already fields enough incoming rockets, no need to bring the building more into play.


I will say, the drive from that back tee would become so difficult in firm conditions because of that left side ridge that filters balls as much left as it does forward. The player would really have to be careful of any drive running up the center to left center of that fairway.


Another note, I believe that tee location is actually at an elevation 10 or 15 feet above the current tee. I am pretty sure the clearing area is marked up the hill beyond that pond and is actually higher. Could be wrong, but that is the area that was pointed out to me about a year ago...

[TEPaul]

"The great thing about the design  under these conditions is having the "cajones" to knock it over, knowing the chip from behind is better than a putt from the front edge"

Archie:

To be honest, I never knew that. One reason may be the hole has always been pretty long for me anyway.

But one thing I do know, and that is if the course is playing pretty firm and fast and most any golfer is approaching it from way up on that ridge, a ball that is initially landed on the green, even the front of the green, probably will get right over that green which is remarkably easy to do with a ball initially landing on it (in f&f conditions).

Your point of it being better over than in front is interesting though as there were times when the grass over that green was mown low.

But of most any hole and any approach I can think of---on the 4th from the top of that ridge fairway everything about the design of that green, green-end and approach virtually screams at me---"BOUNCE THE BALL IN".

[TEPaul]

"I will say, the drive from that back tee would become so difficult in firm conditions because of that left side ridge that filters balls as much left as it does forward. The player would really have to be careful of any drive running up the center to left center of that fairway."

Sully:

I know exactly what you mean there but I'm willing to make you a small bet that with that new back tee as far back as it is planned to be that particular problem will be very much minimized. I think the reason is that shots from that far back just won't be so likely to reach that part of the left side of that fairway that really filters balls left and into the junk. I do know that guys who are long who hit a driver or even 3 wood from the present tip tees to the left half of that fairway are probably going into the junk either halfway down or all the way down on the left. But from that new tee position I doubt too many will even reach that point on the left half that filters the ball left into the junk. If they put that new tee 50-60 yards back there with the fairly significant elevation drop back there it's going to make that tee shot play at least 75 yards longer than the present tip tee.

Also, guys like you who are long may not fully appreciate just how wide and long that ridge fairway is because for years now you've been going down the far side into the lower tier. Next time you're there walk it off side to side and from the beginning of the fairway to end of the fairway ridge. It's a lot bigger wider and longer up there than you may realize.

[archie_struthers]

 

Thomas

It absolutely screams bounce it, which brings the parallel ridgeline that bisects the fairway right in front of the green into play. Man this Crump guy really got it!

 The great thing about this ridgeline on four is that it doesn't funnel anything to the middle of the green, its a slightly convex ( repellent)  ridgeline making the shot even  more interesting.

If somehow the the longer shot to the green brings trajectory back into the game,  it's a great thing!!!!!!

However, they just invented this new pod shaped howitzer stealth driver which combined with a tetrahedral configured proton injected golf ball can negate all this architecture stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[TEPaul]

"However, they just invented this new pod shaped howitzer stealth driver which combined with a tetrahedral configured proton injected golf ball can negate all this architecture stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Archie:

As my old man used to say (he worked for Spalding)----"95% of what these manufacuturers tell you about their products is just marketing bullshit."  

But words like "pod-shaped", "howizter", "stealth" and "tetrahedral" definitely do get peoples' attention. A whole lot of golfers are like Caddieshack's Rodney Dangerfield.  

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
The new back tee on #8 at Oakmont is fine.  I was suggesting that adding a new one on #5 at PV would be very suspect.  Furthermore, the new one proposed on #4 at PV would in my opinion, look very forced.  

Right or wrong, I tend to feel that the best back tees (those that have been added later on) are the ones that look like they might have been there from the start because that is where the architect wanted them in the first place (or had planned for them should elasticity been required to maintain design intent).  The same goes for bunkers or any other design feature.

[Sean Leary]

Mark,

I would agree that the new tees on 3 and 14, because of the tiered build up necessary for downhill par 3's, look forced from the side walking towards it. But it doesn't seem forced once you get on the tee to play your shot.  The other new ones to me look like they have been there forever.

[JESII]

Mark,


Give me a break...you are the one that put a new tee for #5 on the table, no one else did...to then say it would be very suspect is a bit like me saying your pending breast enhancement surgery might not be very flattering...

#4 - How can you say now that it wouldn't look natural?

When you do work on a course, does the end result look like it has been there from the start?

[archie_struthers]

 

as a neo-natalist, oops traditionalist leaning anarchist wanna be architect, I strongly suspected that I would hate the new tees at PVGC.

Tp my great surprise , I love them!  Witht the possible exception of #14, where I could never figure out the wind even from the front.

In looking at the potential strategic elements that could be enhanced by a new tee on #4, if I had anything to say about it I'd be all over it. I definitely think that you can slip something back to the right if the DEP lhurdles don't jump up.

The strategic appeal of the second shot if infinitely more interesting from the top of the hill or a hanging lie to the left than from 136 yards out.

I really don't think there can be any argument on this point for anyone who knows this particular hole.

Remember it was a young Nicklaus who said that he thought the green on thirteen was a tad large for the second shot.
Now we have thousands of guys hitting it where he was pretty much an aberration in his day.

The changes seem warranted to me, and  those proposed on numero quatro might be more warranted than those done on # 13.

[TEPaul]

Mark:

If PV does add a new tee where proposed on #4 that would probably pretty much max out the course distance-wise, although there probably is some avaiable elasticity here and there on holes where it wouldn't really make much sense or matter. Obviously with tee length addition one has to consider if it's remotely possible hole per hole given what the hole is all about and it certainly isn't possible and basically  never been on #2, #5!!, #6!!(they did add the Jay Sigel tee years ago), #10 (they did add some here less than ten years ago, #11!! #12 (the back tee here was added by JAB). Some of the others were maxed out in the last few years like #3, #7, #9, #13, #14, #15, probably #16 and #18. Somebody told me they might consider adding to #1 but I can't imagine that because if you took the vegetation away a new tee there would almost hang out over the driveway. They could probably add to #8 and frankly it looked to me recently like that just regraded that whole tee and maybe they did add some to it. But if they do end up doing #4 that will put the tips around 7,050 which is pretty good for a par 70 course that has 2-3 really good short par 4s on it.

But obviously no one in their right mind would consider adding anything to #5 and it isn't necessary anyway. They have very rarely ever used the back 1/3 of that tee anyway.

One hole they actually could add to bigtime is #17 and it was very lightly considered but it would seem to me to have been pretty odd. They could've gone way back behind the waterworks which the present tip tees have always backed up on. The interesting thing about #17 is one of Crump's initial iterations had that hole quite a bit longer than it has always been. The reason for that is Crump was considering the 16th as the par 5 with a green probably out near the peninsula behind #14. From there it would have been a short stretch to the left to a much longer #17 to a tee that obviously would've been behind the water works.

Also, believe it or not Crump had been considering putting a tee where the new #9 tip is now and also sort of near where the new #13 tip is now (he actually wanted something of a ramp off the back of #12 to the tip 13th tee).

[Peter Pallotta]

A question from someone who's never been to or played PV:

Is length a particularly important aspect of the course's
"resistance to scoring" (relative to, say, other top-flight courses)?

Thanks
Peter

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
As long as that kind of study is going on (as you suggest it is) great, go for it and do what is right for the course.  I just struggle a bit when tees like this are built (see below).  I will not mention the name of the golf course but I'm sure some will recognize it.  Was "design intent" restored?  Probably, but for how many players?  And look at what everyone else is left to admire when they walk from the previous hole!

[TEPaul]

"Is length a particularly important aspect of the course's
"resistance to scoring" (relative to, say, other top-flight courses)?"

Peter:

For good golfers I'd say no---just length is not the primary aspect that makes the course's resistance to scoring pretty high, and it never has been that. The primary aspect that has always made PV's resistance to scoring high is the complications of various recovery shots throughout the course for missing intended targets of fairways and greens. If any golfer gets stubborn or greedy with recovery shots there it can cause what's referred to down there as "others" and that can happen to players of any level on that course.