New back tee at #4 at Pine Valley?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You'd have to go to the back of the present tee and look back and down to understand why a new tee directly behind the present back tee wouldn't work. Look at the angle to the right and behind if you're there. It's not a bad angle at all and is not playing towards the trees on the left as much as you might think. Again, they may need to do some restorative work on the right corner to return it to what it was but other than that the new proposed tee and angle seems to work well enough and the point of it is to keep longer hitter on top of the hill more often which is what the hole needs now for the long hitter contingent. The hole has really lost that initial design intention to technology.

[K. Krahenbuhl]

While on the topic of PV I thought I would remind everyone that the Byron Nelson/Gene Littler Shell Wonderful World of Golf match will be shown tomorrow (4/25) on the Golf Channel at 2pm Eastern.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I"m aware of the steep drop off behind the current 4th tee.

What's the land like behind the old or original 4th tee ?

[JESII]

Pat,


Are you suggesting that the original tees on #4 were to the left (closer to #3 green) than the current tee? I would bet the current arrangement provides less than a 15 yard walk from the back left edge of #3 green to the 4th tee...why would moving in that direction be a benefit to the issue of restoring Crump's intent in any way?

[wsmorrison]

Here is an old photo of the 4th tee.  I think it is from the late 1910s (1916?) to early 1920s.  This tee doesn't appear to be in a different location from today's tee.  

[JESII]

Wayne,


Agreed...even if it were slightly to the left of todays tee location, there is only a few yards to play with. In my opinion that could hardly be viewed as a gross departure from Crumps intent.

On this specific issue of a proposed tee well back and a fair bit to the right, I think the key part of Crump's intent would be given its best chance to return...ie: having longer "tournament" players hit their approach shot from the top of the hill.

I see a key component of achieving that result in the sharper angle off the tee which would/should then force a guy playing from that tee to move his ball from left-to-right...which for most of us is a distance sacrificing shot...not including Mr.'s Cirba, Bennet and any of you other bassackwards guys out there.

I think if the tee went back on the same line it is currently, they would have to add 70 yards to it to keep a long hitter up top because the need to cut the ball will not be as prevalent...


by the way, another great photo...

[JSlonis]

Wayne,

Great old photo.  To me, the tee shot from when that photo was taken appears even more difficult than it is today.  There was just nothing at all to help frame the tee shot back then.  Without those trees on either side that add some frame of reference for the golfer, it just looks like you were hitting out into space.  I've always found with my own game that I have a much more uneasy feeling when playing a shot, especially a blind shot like on the 4th tee at PVGC, without something to focus on.  

I would assume we all get this feeling to some extent on courses we play.  I'm sure everyone has certain holes or shots that they play well most all of the time and others that no matter how good they are playing, always seem to cause trouble.  For me, it's all about a hole or a shot fitting my "eye".  The mind's eye is a powerful thing in golf, and the more an architect can make the golfer feel ill at ease, the more he will cause indecision, and affect strategy.  It's a great tool that architects have that probably doesn't get used enough anymore.  The modern golfer wants everything laid out in front of them and properly framed.  The modern golfer shouldn't always get what they want.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,

I"m aware of the steep drop off behind the current 4th tee.

What's the land like behind the old or original 4th tee ?"

Patrick:

The same!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I know that Google Earth isn't always accurate, but, their elevation information seems to contradict that.  However, I'd tend to agree with you on the steepness of the incline behind that area.

Then, it dawned on me.

What difference does it make with respect to how steep it is behind the original tee down to the road.

This is Pine Valley, a golf course built on sandy soil.

All it would take to construct a tee behind Crump's original tee would be some tree clearing and a lot of fill.

Fill is cheap, they've got tons of it on property.

I suspect that power lines might have to be shifted to the other side of the road behind the area at some cost, removal of trees at minimal cost, introduction of fill at some cost, and Viola ! You've got your tee just as Crump intended, and, it accomplishes what's desired when it comes to the modern championship golfer.

So, why wouldn't PV, a club so steeped in the tradition of George Crump, want to do it the right way, Crump's way, instead of the cheap way ?

The relocation of the back tee, which most agree is needed, would return the top of the high ridge to the intended DZ, would be as Crump intended, preserving the angle of attack, what the golfer confronts off the tee and the visuals Crump wanted.

By doing so, PV would perpetuate Crump's design intent, their traditions and connection to Crump.

If the tee is relocated off to the right, it's just another committee's or President's pet project.

Money shouldn't be the driving force.
Money shouldn't over ride Pine Valley's valued and historic architectural integrity.

Think about it.
I wonder what J.O. thinks.
Show this to him.

[JESII]

I'm must be missing something...are you suggesting that a tee to the left of the current tee would be less expensive than a tee to the right of it?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Without going to a lot of textual detail here what you need to do is go out there and look at the ground and I think you'll see what I mean.

If they tried to build a tee directly behind the present tee they would have to use so much fill they would have to create a tunnel for the road (behind the back tee) to the short course and some of the houses. That would not only be a massive project but it would also look shockingly manufactured----ridiculous actually.

When it comes to detailed architectural matters of both distance and particularly topography I recommend you or anyone else actually look at the land while on the land and not depend on GOOGLE EARTH's topographical mechanism as that incredible time-waster and over-arching arguer David Moriarty tried to do with some of the detail of Merion's 10th hole. What he needed to do for starters is go out to the site and look at the land and not argue the details of it from California via GOOGLE EARTH.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'm must be missing something...are you suggesting that a tee to the left of the current tee would be less expensive than a tee to the right of it?

You are correct, you are missing something.

NO, I'm not suggesting that,
I"m suggesting the opposite, and that cost shouldn't be a factor in determining where a new back tee goes on # 4.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I'm familiar with the terrain surrounding the 4th tee.

As to an artificial look, I'd disagree with you.

Does the back tee on # 14 or # 16 look artificial ?

And, if you classify the new back tee on # 18 as natural looking, I"m sure that a new back tee on # 4, irrespective of the amount of fill required, will look quite natural.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

If you're actually suggesting the tee position for a new tee on #4 be directly behind the present tee you can't be familiar with the drop behind the present tee down to the road. A tee back there would have to be high enough in relation to the present tee which would make a tee back there enormous and then how would they tie that back down to the road? They'd probably have to build a tunnel for the road. And I thought your idea for a new back tee on #18 of moving Macdonald's gate and the driveway at NGLA was crazy. This suggestion is twice as crazy. Are you the same guy who's always complaining about people disfiguring golf courses?  

By the way have you actually gone back there and looked at the hole from where the new proposed tee position is?