[Gene Greco]

  I believe it's called Sand Hills Golf Club.

[Mike_Cirba]

Sully,

Yes, agreed, and I wish they'd get on with it...not that they have any reason to listen to me.

It's just that it's mindblowing how good it could be.  

Gene,

Touche'!

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom,  
that is truly wonderful stuff! We're lucky to have you on the board.

The perspective people like you and JES bring to the table is really an eye-opener for me.

I can't put it any better right now, but hope to when I figure it out.

Thanks
Peter      

[TEPaul]

"Yes, agreed, and I wish they'd get on with it...not that they have any reason to listen to me."

Well, Mike, they probably won't listen to you about a tree problem but let's just said they would or did.

What is it exactly you'd recommend to them in that vein? I'll take you suggestions generally but if you want to go farther than that I'd love to hear your recommendations hole by hole.  

As for Shinnecock and trees----that's a most interesting story.

Initially the site, preconstruction, had few. And then Flynn came in with one of the most interesting "tree plans" I've ever heard of. Alison wrote of it and its cleverness and that it be done correctly.

It appears due to the expense of it, it may never have been done, or done as planned.

And then, over the years, Shinnecock got really "treed up" by lack of attention.

And then along came the very dedicated and intelligent current Green Chairman, who began to do something about the tree problem beginning almost twenty years ago.

Today, compared what it used to look like tree-wise, Shinnecock is a great example. They've left trees on the course, and, in my opinon, just the way they should be on a golf course like that one in that place.

But again, I'm never going to stop preaching about what the ideal "tree plan" should be for Pine Valley which few on here seem to understand or acknowledge.

As with most things Pine Valley and Shinnecock are very different types and styles of golf course and in that way they really do bracket what is so interesting about American golf course architecture.

[JESII]

  I believe it's called Sand Hills Golf Club.

So I've heard Gene, look forward to seeing sometime.

[JESII]

Tom,

How does today's tree presentation at Shinnecock compare to Flynn's "plan"?

[TEPaul]

"How does today's tree presentation at Shinnecock compare to Flynn's "plan"?


Very good question.

Obviously, Flynn (and Tyng's) tree plan was never really put into affect but if it had been compared to what you see today---I think the difference you'd see is the trees in that plan would have been more spread out into what's sometimes called "boskies" and they would've been much taller on the HIGHER elevations and LOWER on the lower elevations.

Today you can generally see over and through the golf course and the trees that remain I think were selected to remain for the overall look and for the interest of the their shapes (trunks) and such.

I have a feeling that golf course looks something like it would look if there wasn't a golf course there, and if you think about it, that's the way it should be. At least that's my opinion of naturalism.

[Mike_Cirba]

"Yes, agreed, and I wish they'd get on with it...not that they have any reason to listen to me."

Well, Mike, they probably won't listen to you about a tree problem but let's just said they would or did.

What is it exactly you'd recommend to them in that vein? I'll take you suggestions generally but if you want to go farther than that I'd love to hear your recommendations hole by hole.  

Tom,

I'd love to see them get back to the width and tree control evident in the 1920s aerials in Geoff Shack's "Golden Age..." book.  

That to me looks absolutely ideal for meeting two somewhat competing goals;

1) Showing off the magnificent property to its best advantage.

2) Creating the "splendid isolation" between holes that Crump desired.

Of course, I'd also like to see a herd of elephants run through the neatly tended Zen Gardens that used to be the sandy waste areas there, as well.  

They need to rough it up, Tom.

It's like when Frank Sinatra or Wayne Newton would sing one of those newfangled rock and roll songs and smooth over all the things that made it distinctive and exciting in the first place.  

That kind of overly fussy thing is for wussies like ANGC...not for PV.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

Those are two separate issues.

I agree that maintaining the sand areas the way they have in the last few years is too bad. The fact is Pine Valley has been considered the top course in the Nation or the World for many decades and in all that time the bunkers and sand areas were essentially unraked. If that got them there in the first place my inclination would be that they should stick with it. Not to mention the fact they were definitely the last great golf course to have unraked bunkering and sand areas. I think they set a great example that way for a long long time---longer than any other great golf course in America.

On the trees----the course and site did become too crowded with trees over the last number of decades. That was apparently done on purpose.

However, one needs to be cognizant of the trees down there and some of the purposes they serve in various areas.

It probably would be a mistake to use a 1920s aerial as a model to go back to. The reason I say that is aerials of that age show some tree clearing in areas that Crump was looking at for golf holes but which he never used. Some of those areas were supposed to be retreed. Other areas such as all along the left of #13 probably weren't supposed to be retreed and had Crump lived it was his intention to leave an area like that open. His reason was so that the flag on the green could be seen from the tee! Think about that on #13!! How cool would that look and be?

The other reason for treeing and vegetating some of the areas that are open on those early aerials was due to something that apparently Crump and PV's early architects and administrators did not foresee.

In the late 1920s they got into a program that was referred to down there as "Holding the Course together".

What that meant is they needed tree roots and vegetative stabilization to hold together some massive sand areas that were slipping and sliding and washing out bigtime and taking sections of the architecture with it.

For some reason some people on here just won't acknowledge that natural reality and continue to say that the club should use early '20s aerials as a tree clearing model. I don't think so unless they want to repeat a natural problem and mistake they once had.

The best tree clearing model in my opinion would be for them to get all the trees out of all the bunkers and the angles from them that Mr Crump created.

The word down there is they plan to take out something like 1,000 trees a year for the next seven to ten years.

If that's true, that's a lot of trees, even at a ultra treed site like Pine Valley.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

That's some good news in your last paragraph!

I do understand about "holding the course together", but if it can be done on very windy, sandy, and completely treeless sites like Sand Hills, I'm not sure that it's as big of a feat today than in Crump's time?

[wsmorrison]

Mike,

Are you certain that Sand Hills is held together?  Aren't there natural evolutions going on due to wind erosion?  From what I've been told, holding that look is not a given.

If a course wants to hold a certain look and dimension, I think there has to be some sort of intervention, especially on sandy soil.  I believe at PV tree lines cut down on wind erosion and roots (trees, bushes and other plants) hold the sandy waste areas together.

[Mike_Cirba]

Wayne,

I understand it takes quite a bit of work each spring to get Sand Hills back within acceptable bounds, depending on the severity of the winter.

In the case of PV, I'm not arguing for deforestation, but instead much more aggressive tree management.   I think the trees are both necessary and part of the "design intent".

[TEPaul]

"but if it can be done on very windy, sandy, and completely treeless sites like Sand Hills, I'm not sure that it's as big of a feat today than in Crump's time?"

Mike:

Do you have any idea what Sand Hills GC goes through in that vein?

It's just incredible. You should speak to Bill Coore about that someday. He says he's never seen anything like it. To date they haven't figured out how to handle it---to just fix things every year or just let it evolve and see what happens.

You know this old saw---"It's not a good idea to F... with Mother Nature"?

Well some need to start to take it more seriously when they do golf architecture study and analysis.

In that vein I have a wonderful story for you involving Maidstone GC and that wonderful dune that basically blinds the super cool par 3 8th hole.

Some decades ago some overarching important member got all ticked at that blindness formed by that natural dune and had the whole thing removed late one fall after the course shut down.

The next spring when he came back Mother Nature had put the thing back just about exactly the way it had been the year before. And so it remains to this day

By the way, I was up there last week and around daybreak I sneaked up behind the 9th tee and 8th green though the dunes in my Range Rover. You want to see what really natural dune-like bunkers and blowouts look like---that's the observation spot par excellence.

Unfortunately it became a bit problematic getting out of there. I had to alternate between the extreme sand and rut setting and the rock climbing setting. I didn't think i was going to make it outta there but finally I did. However there was so much sand and shit on and under the car I had to take it over to the Maidstone Maintenance Department and hoist it up and hose it off.  

When me and the car were all cleaned up I picked up my wife so she could go to the new POLO kids store on the star stocked main drag to shop for her little grandson and do some star gazing.

She was really concentrating on her shopping as I was day dreaming and wondering who asked the pretty little waspish POLO sales girl to wear corduroy short shorts and knee high riding boots. All of a sudden I hear all these English accents and as I turned around who do I bump right into but Sir Paul McCartney. Nice guy he is---real down to earth.

The next day me and Mike Tiernan went over to some fancy Indian take-out restaurant in Amagannsett to pick up some curry stuff for the troops and who do I bump into again but Sir Paul McCartney. For some reason he had the same clothes on he had on the day before. I guess that's some kind of British or European thing.

This time he looks at my cap and says; "Where is Prairie Dunes?"

So I said: "It's in Huchinson Kansas, and who in the Hell wants to know? By the way, if I run into you again tomorrow are you gonna have the same clothes on?"

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I can't even respond with anything cogent or tangentially related in response.  

Great stories!  

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
I can't even respond with anything cogent or tangentially related in response."

I know what you mean. Even I can't think of anything cogent or tangentially related to those stories.  

[Phil Benedict]

Tom,

My all-time favorite celebrity sighting was Paul McCartney at Heathrow Airport many years ago,and you got to see him two days in a row. The Beatles were the Tiger Woods of entertainment.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

My all-time favorite celebrity sighting was Paul McCartney at Heathrow Airport many years ago,and you got to see him two days in a row. The Beatles were the Tiger Woods of entertainment.

McCartney's latest album has been stuck in my CD player the past month and a half.   I think it's the best thing he's done since the Beatles.

PV vs Shinny is sort of like Lennon vs McCartney.  

[Phil Benedict]

I just watched the documentary The US vs John Lennon.  After he has finally prevailed in his immigration fight, John is asked on the courthouse steps whether he has any bitter feelings towards the people who led the fight to run him out of the country.  His response was "no, time wounds all heels."
What a great answer!

[Michael Ryan]

This thread is exactly the reason I joined and enjoy this site.  I have exactly one round each on PV and SH, and as much as I attempted to take in everything I could during my time at each, the actual playing of my round was foremost on my mind.  To listen to the intricraties of the design (many times with a history lesson related to the specific subject) makes me appreciate each even more.  Thanks to all who contribute on here.

For an amateur GCA enthusiast, I give a slight nod to SH, feeling its the greatest golf course I have ever played.  However my best "overall experience" in golf was my time at PV, from pulling up to the gate in the morning right on through.

[Phil Benedict]

When Pine Valley was built were all the holes isolated from one another or is that a consequence of subsequent tree growth?  

[Mike Sweeney]

When Pine Valley was built were all the holes isolated from one another or is that a consequence of subsequent tree growth?  

From www.tillinghast.net

[David Stamm]

Peter, FWIW, when I bought Warner Shelley's club history from 1986, I just couldn't believe what some of the scores were on some of these holes. 26's on par 3's for example! However, TEP enlightened me as to the why's of how this could happen. In our conversations, Tom had told me that it isn't necessarily the design per se, it's the surroundings of the course that make it so penal. I haven't played either of these titans, so Tom and others that have can can explain all this better. I do remember Tom telling me that the corridors there (PV) are not as narrow as one would think considering the courses reputation. I would think in a typical Hampton's afternnon wind, Shinny would be just as penalizing, just in a different way. Quite frankly, I really can't imagine a more formidable duo to discuss in regards to their opposing virtues. They are so different in so many respects it seems to me.

[TEPaul]

PhilB:

The site that George Crump found before building the golf course was heavily treed but just about everything there was pretty small back in 1913. If you ask me the reason for that must have been some massive fires out there maybe in the end of the 19th century and consequently the trees on the raw site were mostly all "second growth".

Today some of those trees that he found there are really massive.

But Crump, never having done a course before had a pretty unique way of analyzing things in the beginning.

Personally I don't think he had much idea how to read or use a topo map well in 1913 (something he put on top of the first one he used leads me to that conclusion).

So it appears his modus operandi down there in the beginning was to have massive amounts of trees cleared in various areas just so he could look at potential hole forms and such in a routing sense. As I said some of those cleared areas were never used and were supposed to be retreed.

In total Crump removed something like 55,000 trees even if most were pretty small.

But if you want to see what the raw site looked like early on just look at those areas in the early aerials that had trees. It was pretty dense with trees down there naturally.

[JSlonis]

When Pine Valley was built were all the holes isolated from one another or is that a consequence of subsequent tree growth?  

What hole is this?  I can't figure out this one out at all.  When someone answers this, I'll probably see right away, but for now I'm totally stumped.  My first guess would be the early "Hell's Half Acre".

Tom Paul's statement of his thoughts for tree management at PV are very good.  The removal and clearing of the trees back beyond the widths of Mr. Crump's original bunkering would be spectacular.  From what I've seen over the last couple of years, the club has been addressing the tree issue head on.  There have been some areas open up that look great. I think anything that can be done to widen the player's view from the tee will have a two-fold effect.  It will enhance the already great look and design; and it will make the hole more difficult.  IMO, by widening the corridors at a course such as Pine Valley, it makes it more difficult for the golfer to narrow his focus for a target off the tee.  By seeing more of the hazards on both sides of the fairway and less trees, some of the framing is taken away and the golfer's eye will tend to wander.  I find at many courses that are more modern, the "framing" off of each tee makes the drive less difficult.  When that framing is removed, even though you might know where the fairway is, it is a bit more difficult to pick out a proper line.  

To use PV as an example, I often find the tee shot on #4 to be a tough one, even with a 3 wood.  For one, it is a blind shot, but after playing it numerous times, you know where the fairway is.  What makes it tough for me is that from the tee you have a very wide look up the hole, there is little to focus on for a target.  Over the crest of the hill, there is nothing but the skyline and the trees at the end of the right bunker(usually a good line off the tee).  

At PV, Crump used width in the fairways to give the player some options, but on many holes, there is a definite line of charm, and the actual playable width is less than it may initially appear.  The widening of the players perspective from the tee, coupled with the exposure of more gnarly areas and bunkers would be an interesting dichotomy...the comfort of what first appears to be more width, followed by an increased view of all the trouble you'll face with a poorly hit tee shot.  

[Phil Benedict]

Tom Paul,

This might be getting off topic but did Crump know the holes would (eventually) be isolated from one another and there would be no adjoining fairways?  Where'd he get the idea to do it this way?  Just the opposite of TOC.

JSlonis,

One of the things that impressed me about Oakmont at the Open was how visually intimidating the absense of trees makes it.  Stand on any tee there and you see grass everywhere but the fairways look tiny.  I don't think it would nearly as scary looking with tree-lined fairways.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()