[archie_struthers]

 Obviously I have a great affinity for Pine Valley, having spent a good deal of my youth walking the fairways with bags on my back. Have had the pleasure/pain of  playing the new (long) tees and really like them.

At breakfast today we were talking about the new tee for #4 , which should be awesome.....except.....for the bunkers that were added on the right side about five years ago on the top of the hill. IMHO they gotta go, particularly with the addition of the new tee.!  I know this one will challenge the treehouse...rave on!

[Jeff_Mingay]

archie,

How long is the carry over the hill from the new back tee?

Curious,

[archie_struthers]

 



I'm gonna guess....maybe someone else can do the math..

Probably from 190 left corner to 255-60 to carry dead right

just making an educated guess...I'll chime in why they have to go later  ...

[TEPaul]

Archie:

I agree with you in that Pine Valley does not exactly need new bunkers that only serve to narrow (for the first time) those interesting PV fairways which otherwise (other than the narrow bands of rough cut that were added merely for mowers to turn on) have never been narrowed.

(The fact is those new bunkers on #4, #7, #9 and #18 were done well enough where not very many golfers even noticed they had been added. But they did serve to narrow a few of those fairways).

In my opinion, and probably in yours too, the only thing the club should do with Crump's bunkers at Pine Valley is get all the trees that have grown up in and around them over the years out of them.

One of the really interesting architectural facts and facets of Pine Valley is how it could always be so visually intimidating without trees crowding in on its' bunkers with such really wide fairways.

The new bunker on the right of #4 has basically somewhat minimized one of the most seemingly high risk but deceptively high reward drives I've ever seen on any hole anywhere.

[TEPaul]

Archie:

I think the carry up there from where I understood the new tee was to be placed is more than that.

The basic idea was to prevent most anyone from getting over the hill and down below easily. That conceptual idea was very much Crump's and after he died Fownes'.

The interesting thing about that fairway on top is from the beginning of it to the end of it on the left is about 70 yards in distance. And it's width is still 60+

There's another interesting item regarding #4 that I find pretty fascinating and that is Alison recommended that a bunker on the left in front of the green be brought into the fairway up to 17 yards. That was supposed to make the approach from up on the hill and from over on the left that much harder.

The real mystery is the 1921 Advisory Committee actually approved it but for some reason it appears it was never carried out.

[Eric Franzen]

I haven't seen the hole in person and is just curious about how a modification like this is handled at Pine Valley (the process is a bit different in Sweden...), so bare with me when I fire away a very basic question.

Was an external architect consulted for this work or was it simply handled by the green committee, who I guess decided that the new bunker should be implemented?

[Jim Franklin]

If I am not mistaken, one person makes the decisions at PV and that is another reason it is such a special place. They do not worry about a committee making decisions because nothing will get done.

I heard a story that when the Short Course was built the vote was all in favor say "I" those against say " I quit".

[JSlonis]

Based on the approximate location of that new tee, I checked out on Google Earth the possible yardage from the new tee to the top of the hill.  In photo #1, the yardage from the current back tee to the crest of the hill is about 255 yards.  In picture #2, from the new tee location to the top of the fairway is about 295 yards.

[JESII]

I disagree that the new bunker on #4 has taken away anything other than good fortune...no one in their right mind would intentionally aim that close to those trees...there is just not enough of a distance difference to get over the ridge to pay for the risk.

To me the most important aspects of the new tee (and I am a bit curious as to exactly where it is) will be the increased angle. Players will now be forced to move the ball left to right. I agree with the notion of forcing a shape occassionally (for top level players).

[Jim Franklin]

Sully -

The last time I played there, my caddy stood right on the tree line for us to aim. I hit a skinny 3 wood that caught the tree and ended up in that bunker. the next two rounds, I aimed 20 yards left of where he stood and was fine. I will say I hit a marvelous shot from that bunker and nearly made birdie. 295 for the young bucks should not be a problem at all.

[JSlonis]

Jim,

If the tee is where I think it will be, it'll be all of 290+ yards...UPHILL as well.  It might make for a great tee, but the walk back and forth from the 3rd green is going to be a hike. There is a pretty good dropoff behind that current 4th tee down to the road, and a good rise on the other side up to the new tee location.

[archie_struthers]

 

Ok guys ...here's my thoughts after seeing thousands of shots from the old tee...from all levels of player

It seems obvious the new tee is designed as you say to bring back that fabulous shot from the top of the hill for the premier players...today many of them hit three woods or even rescue clubs from the back of the existing tee to the bottom of the hill , leaving a shot of approximately 140-165 yards to the green. The green is large , as is the norm at Pine Valley, and this one tends to run away towards the back right....the logic to lengthen the hole to reward shot making is impeccable .....my problem is that it will give the bombers even more of an advantge to the mere mortals that can only hit it 275-290.

Moreover those who hit driver even a little left from the new tee, as is needed, will be punished severely as it will run thru and into the bunkers , high rough left.

Perhaps Jamie Slonis or someone more technologically adroit than I can post a graphic of this hole to illustrate the angles.

No need to punish the straignt hitter from taking an aggressive, and risky line to the right on the tee shot.

 It also adds to the options off the tee....which is great! Perhaps JES 11 can log on ...as he would understand this intimately.

[JSlonis]

Here you go Archie...



This will give you an idea of the different angles.  I think the difference is more significant in person compared to what it looks like on the photo.

As for options, from the proposed site of the new back tee, there really won't be any....Hit driver far and straight!

From the current back tee, under normal conditions, there are a few options.  For me, it is always a choice between 3 wood and driver, and the choice varied from day to day depending upon all the various conditions that I faced.

[JESII]

Jim Franklin,

Were you in the big bunker or the smaller one 20 yards beyond and right at the crest of the ridge? The smaller, second one is new.

Archie,

I have gotten away with several (and saw several others get away with) tee shots fanned out to the right that landed right where the current bunker is and have the ball bounce down to the left into the kitchen...I would argue the sensibilities of any player intentionally aimng for that spot.

For me to take on the risk associated with nipping those trees I need a hell of alot more reward than is offered there. The same quality shot aimed over the caddy's head will end up in the same spot and afford my the chance to wiff it right and maybe get a good bounce...extra distance is not needed...the only thing saved is the threat of pulling the ball 40 yards and running through the left side.



Jamie,

When the proposed tee was first pointed out to me, it was by a member that doesn't typically play the back tees. He pointed to a spot on the hill higher than the current tee height. To get that high you need to add 60 - 70 yards to the hole and it also greatly sharpened the angle. This would seem to require a really good drive by me (a 280 - 290 hitter) to get to the top of the ridge 30 yards short of the crest that goes down. It'll make it a ball buster and the green is certainly set up for it so it's fine by me...BUT...this fall a whole different spot was pointed out that was only 30 - 40 yards behind the current tee, just above the water that is just across the road.

I don't think 40 yards longer will force me to play my approach from the top of the hill unless we went out today...

[JSlonis]

Sully,

The area I thought that was proposed was in the slightly cleared area back on the hillside to the right of the current tee.  There is an area where you can clearly see some bare sand/clay in an area that looked like a small clearing.  If it's in the different spot that you mentioned, I know where you are talking about. Wouldn't that spot be well below the level of the current tee?  If so, even a 30-40 yard increase would be significant given the topography.

Another image angle for Archie...

[JESII]

Jamie,

I think the spot initially pointed out to me could not possibly be correct...it was at least as high an elevation as the current tee.

You are correct though that anything 30 -40 yards behind the current tee would start out much lower than the current...

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks for the education, gents.  

As an aside, one thing I learned about are the limitations (for me, at least) of the google aerials.  

As nice as those look, without you guys filling in the blanks (e.g. the topography, the green contours etc) I wouldn't have understood why anyone would ever flirt with the trees on the right, or how the new tees called for shaping the drive, ie since going 'straight' left (whether long or short) didn't seem like a problem, especially with the green opening up from there.

Maybe others can tell more from these maps/aerials than I can, but it just struck me how much of the "three dimensions" of golf design I'd be missing without input from those who know

Peter

[archie_struthers]

 

thanks for all the great work guys, I was eating breakfast with the esteemed Mike Mulroy, and we got into it pretty good regarding this .  He is more easy going than I but just as stubborn LOL!  

What intrigues me about the angle from the new tee is that the average long hitter...not 300+ guys can still be a good amateur...on this hole you might get the Trevino gripe about Augusta....that the rich get richer just because of length in the air....At present the "Valley" doesn't give much a huge advantage to the super bombers...

My concern is that the new tee will do just this...as the average hitter  (eg Ben Crenshaw types) will have to lay back 40 -60 yards back of the bombers....not a good thing to me

Moreover they will have real issues with the right to left cant in the first 50% of the fairway ...further penalizing them

JES..Jamie ...query...

Wouldn't taking out the new bunkers enable an aggressive straight hitter (not a popgun , but someone of Trevino..Crenshaw's length in their prime to have an option to take an aggressive line

TEP if you get this...think of your options post new bunkers from the Crump tees when you played in the tournament...it's a similar  scenario

 I can tell you only a few guys ...all caddies saw more of this tee shot than I  ...and actually watched how the ball bounced ...the new bunkers eliminate the eliment of chance to some extent...maybe not a good thing?

[archie_struthers]

 

Pete Palotta....without the benefit of having been to PV and seeing the plateau that is the first 60-70 yards of this fairway...it's hard to imagine the advantage of driving it right center and taking advantage of the turbo booster that drops almost 20 feet in elevation approximately 40 yards from the center bunkers that Jamie has posted....

here's the rub...the fairway cants slightly right to left ...particularly in the left qudrant ...causing any shot hit too long and straight to kick thru into the heavy rough / bunkers that you see all down the left side of the diagram... it isn't a pretty place ...so the right side line is optimal... what I understand the problem to be is people hitting 240 yard three irons into same

my concern....which I'm sure the powers to be will consider..is the new tee removes this option from all but a few....which might defeat the purpose

I'm still thinking that removing the "new" bunkers will eliminate this issue...and encourage some gambling tee shots...and you know what this does at "the Valley"  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Based on the approximate location of that new tee, I checked out on Google Earth the possible yardage from the new tee to the top of the hill.  In photo #1, the yardage from the current back tee to the crest of the hill is about 255 yards.  In picture #2, from the new tee location to the top of the fairway is about 295 yards.

JSlonis,

What you haven't factored in is the EFFECTIVE distance.

With the fairway sitting up, so much higher than the tee, you can probably add another 30 or so yards, in effect.

The upslope of that fairway and its effect on run will limit distance for those who can't reach the crest on the fly.

TEPaul,

Well, it took you 3-5 years, but, I see that you now agree with me about clearing the trees back from areas of play.

[JSlonis]

Pat,

I mentioned the "uphill" in my post to JESII.  Even a 30 yard increase given the topography of where a new tee would sit in regard to the fairway would be a very significant increase.  With the fairway rising up to the plateau, it will take a mighty tee shot to carry to the crest and have a chance of getting the boost down the hill to "position A".

As you know, the shorter hitter would get hurt more because his good drive will be landing into the upslope toward the plateau.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JSlonis,

That will leave all who don't reach the crest with a blind approach, a difficult angle and disaster looming all around.

The solution has to be with the ball, not constantly moving tees until you run out of room.

If ANGC developed a "Competition" ball, I think PV and other icons of American golf would adopt it .......   quickly

[Willie_Dow]

Archie:  This is my favorite P/V story.

Hitting off number four tee I pushed the ball and it landed in the road next to the condo's, rolling down to about 90 yards from the green, but still in play.  A sand wedge to the green, but I missed a putt for a three.

The new back tee won't bother that shot when I play there on Saturday with the Divotees !

[Doug Siebert]

That looks like a pretty good change to me.  Yes, it gives the longer hitters a bigger advantage, but ONLY if they execute that shot, which doesn't look easy to me.  Its one thing to carry the ball 295 (more like 300 or 305 if you count the uphill) and its another altogether to do it when you know that even a relatively small miss that loses 10 or 15 yards or even the slightest push to the right catches one of those treetops and suddenly you are scrambling for bogey -- if you find your ball at all!

I think it'd be a worthy challenge for the really good player.  Yes, the pro or near-pro caliber players will probably handle that tee shot with aplomb, but aren't those guys already eating PV alive today anyway?

[Mike_Cirba]

I'm firmly in Archie's and Jamie's camps on this one.  

If there was a way to keep the existing angle from the tee (without building a gargantuan elevated sore-thumb tee) adding distance might not be a bad thing, but with the increased distance and the angle, the bottom line is this;

Despite the added yardage, there is NO way that it will play as it did in Crump's day or to Crump's intentions.  It will now become a  reverse camber dogleg right with trees blocking the most aggressive play.   We might as well be talking the 4th at Olympic Lake!    

It also creates a long, forced, ungainly walk that makes no sense and detracts from the intimacy of the present routing.  

Why the need for the change?   Is everyone birdieing the hole?  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()