[Patrick_Mucci]

There's no benefical reason to continue this as we're just saying the same things over and over again.

I'm just asking you if I have my facts correct when it comes to the statements I made about the 18th green. 

Either I do, or I don't.

I'd just like you to answer that question.

My point is you are looking at PV with far less than the necessary information about its creation and evolution one would need to have to make informed decisions about anything to do with the course including tree removal.

TE, I'm not that obtuse.
I get it, I understand it, I've gotten it for years and I've understood it for years.

I think I'm perfectly capable of examining PV in the context of a walk around, armed with pre and post 1963 aerials, and making a determination as to where trees need to be removed on a hole by hole basis.

I don't need to be an archeologist or an historian to perform that task.

I think my architectural eye, brain and senses are keen enough for me to make an informed, intelligent decision.

Especially in the context of a comparative analogy between what I would do and what's been done to date.

You can continue to write the kinds of posts you have been in various ways but that fact is just not going to change and it is very apparent. It's probably basically the same with any golf course one makes suggestions about----one really does need to do the research to understand the details of its evolution and the opinions of the people who were involved, and you just haven't done that.

Again, just walking into a club and looking at something like that 1925 aerial and then suggesting that's the complete blueprint for tree removal today is not intelligent. It's not a bad place to start but one needs a lot more information than that.

TE, I do have a frame of reference based on personal experience that dates
back to 1964, 45 years ago, so, it's not as if I just saw PV for the first time.

Secondly, I never said that that was the complete blueprint, those are your words, not mine.

Third, if you view the 1925 aerial and compare it to the 1931, 1940, 1957 and 1963 aerials you won't see any great incremental differences, so I feel fairly comfortable with using the 1925 aerial as a benchmark or starting point.  Obviously, as I've stated, and as you've chosen to ignore, I indicated that prior to removing any tree I would embark upon a thorough hole by hole walk through to "fine tune" any tree management program.

This is something that the curators should have been doing for decades.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of greatness.

Unfortunately, benign negligence has been the rule, not the exception. 
Still, the golf course remains quite special, it just needs some attention and fine tuning.

Given the choice of tinkering or neglecting, I'd opt for neglecting, as that inactivity doesn't normally result in the disfiguration of the golf course, but, because PV is so special, allowing it to suffer the ravages of benign neglect over the years is inexcusable.

Could you address the questions I asked you about the 18th green.

Are my facts correct or incorrect ?

P.S.  Could someone post the old photo of the 18th green with the mound
        in the middle ?  I believe a picture of the 18th green appeared on the
        cover of an advertisement for a seed company.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Another question I had for you is as follows.

In looking at the 1925 aerial, could you tell me where Pine Valley planted trees subsequent to that aerial ?

Could you point to those area in the 1931 aerial so that we can easily identify and analyze the plantings subsequent to 1925 ?

Thanks

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Another question I had for you is as follows.
In looking at the 1925 aerial, could you tell me where Pine Valley planted trees subsequent to that aerial ?
Could you point to those area in the 1931 aerial so that we can easily identify and analyze the plantings subsequent to 1925?"



Pat:

Sure I could but that's a pretty long and involved answer and I've put most of that on here anyway over the years. Apparently you either missed it all or decided to refuse to consider it. To understand not just what happened at PV over the years including with trees but also why it's necessary to look at all the available time-stagger of aerials and then compare it to the way it is now using those reasons as to why various things were done at particular points in time. Maybe you don't care about things like that but I do. 1925 to 1931 is just a small part of that.

Essentially to understand some of the tree planting over time one needs to understand both what some of those areas are that were once cleared and why they were cleared. I'm referring to those areas that Crump considered for holes or parts of them that were never used. I've been trying to explain this to you for what seems like years now. In my opinion, THAT is where one needs to start if tree clearing, tree planting and tree removal in the future is to be intelligently considered. Following that one needs to begin to analyze the bunkering on the course and its evolution vis-a-vis trees.

But if you think it's appropriate for someone to just walk into the clubhouse and look at a photograph on the wall from 1925 and then just use that to make a suggestion for a comprehensive blueprint for tree removal today, then be my guest but I do not agree with that and I've been trying to explain the reasons why to you for a long time. My point to you is that is just not intelligent or useful and it should not be taken seriously by anyone, certainly including the club. A lot more information than that is needed, in my opinion, and I've been telling you that for a few years.

And again, in my own opinion, a really good and comprehensive tree removal program for the course would be to remove the trees that surround the existing bunkers and most all their sightlines (I say most because there probably are a few exceptions to that).

The best way to discuss this would be to do it hole by hole but I can understand you are in no way prepared to do that at this time. It does take a lot of time to analyze, that's for sure.

[TEPaul]

"I'm just asking you if I have my facts correct when it comes to the statements I made about the 18th green. 
Either I do, or I don't.
I'd just like you to answer that question."



Pat:

In that case, you should probably put the statements you've made on here about the 18th green back on here, particularly if it includes any suggestion on your part about actually restoring that massive pimple on the 18th green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"TEPaul,
Another question I had for you is as follows.
In looking at the 1925 aerial, could you tell me where Pine Valley planted trees subsequent to that aerial ?
Could you point to those area in the 1931 aerial so that we can easily identify and analyze the plantings subsequent to 1925?"



Pat:

Sure I could but that's a pretty long and involved answer and I've put most of that on here anyway over the years. Apparently you either missed it all or decided to refuse to consider it. To understand not just what happened at PV over the years including with trees but also why it's necessary to look at all the available time-stagger of aerials and then compare it to the way it is now using those reasons as to why various things were done at particular points in time. Maybe you don't care about things like that but I do. 1925 to 1931 is just a small part of that.

Essentially to understand some of the tree planting over time one needs to understand both what some of those areas are that were once cleared and why they were cleared. I'm referring to those areas that Crump considered for holes or parts of them that were never used. I've been trying to explain this to you for what seems like years now. In my opinion, THAT is where one needs to start if tree clearing, tree planting and tree removal in the future is to be intelligently considered. Following that one needs to begin to analyze the bunkering on the course and its evolution vis-a-vis trees.

But if you think it's appropriate for someone to just walk into the clubhouse and look at a photograph on the wall from 1925 and then just use that to make a suggestion for a comprehensive blueprint for tree removal today, then be my guest but I do not agree with that and I've been trying to explain the reasons why to you for a long time. My point to you is that is just not intelligent or useful and it should not be taken seriously by anyone, certainly including the club. A lot more information than that is needed, in my opinion, and I've been telling you that for a few years.

And again, in my own opinion, a really good and comprehensive tree removal program for the course would be to remove the trees that surround the existing bunkers and most all their sightlines (I say most because there probably are a few exceptions to that).

The best way to discuss this would be to do it hole by hole but I can understand you are in no way prepared to do that at this time. It does take a lot of time to analyze, that's for sure.

TEPaul,

I don't need a lengthy desertation on what the definition of the word "is" is.

Just answer the simple question I posed.

Show us on the 1931 aerial the areas planted subsequent to 1925.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"I'm just asking you if I have my facts correct when it comes to the statements I made about the 18th green. 
Either I do, or I don't.
I'd just like you to answer that question."

Pat:

In that case, you should probably put the statements you've made on here about the 18th green back on here, particularly if it includes any suggestion on your part about actually restoring that massive pimple on the 18th green.

I'll ask you the question again.

Do I, or do I not have my facts right about the 18th green ?

And, why did you choose to leave out my specific reference to the ridge/spine in the 18th green ?

The facts are that I'm right and that you're trying everything possible to wiggle out of admitting it, such as omitting the fact that I refered, not just to the mound in the 18th green, but to Crump's stated intent to insert a ridge/spine in the 18th green, something that hasn't been done, despite Crump's wishes.

I'm merely echoing Crump's stated position on the 18th green.

It's bland and it needs an internal feature, be it a mound as originally designed and constructed, or a spine/ridge as Crump indicated.

Either way, with either feature, the one built or the one intended, Crump wanted that green to have a pronounced feature that would accomplish several playing objectives, on the approach, recovery and putts.

You just can't admit that Crump and I are in perfect harmony on this issue and that I'm RIGHT ........ again.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

What are these last few posts of yours about? Are you trying to show you're right about something? If you ask me if your statements about PV's 18th green are correct why don't you SHOW ME what your statement was so I can answer you about its accuracy?

First of all, and for about the tenth time I've put it on this website, that pimple that was once on the 18th green was originally put there by Crump as a temporary feature to look at a way to penalize balls sliced across that green. He planned to replace it with a ridge of some kind somewhere on the right side of that green. This was recorded in writing in the teens by his two closest friends down there (and likely independent of one another) so if you don't believe them what does that matter since they were his closest friends down there? They played with him and spoke to him all the time when he was building that course and you certainly never spoke to him or have even read what those two friends, Carr and Smith, wrote not just about the 18th hole and green but every other hole. So why would anyone care what your opinion is about that green and that pimple unless you are considering what was said about it by his two closest friends down there at the time and about what they wrote his intentions were?

I am the one who told you that pimple was considered by Crump to be temporary and that he planned to replace it with some kind of a ridge in the green on the right so what are you asking me for if YOU are right about that? 

That infamous pimple on the 18th green which was remarkably high in relation to a narrow base was hugely unpopular and John Arthur Brown removed it in the mid 1920s. The hole by hole suggestions generated by Hugh Alison in his report that was used to arrive at the hole by hole decisions of the so-called 1921 Advisory Committee to finish off the golf course, also recommended the removal of that mound and the committee accepted that recommendation and all members concured. That so-called 1921 Advisory Committee consisted of Carr, Bole, Fownes and included Mott, Street, and Alan Wilson of the Green Committee.

My own feeling on the 18th green is when that pimple was removed in the mid-1920s that a ridge to the right as was vaguely explained in those "Remembrances" was not really put in in the place of that "Pimple" in a way Crump may've been visualizing that replacement ridge to the right and the basic affect of it in play. Should it be considered today? With what is written in the archives it'd seem to me there is enough info in those archives for a good architect to be able to interpret it today the way his two close friends wrote Crump was visualizing it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Anyone with a decent archtectural eye and a good understanding of playing characteristics and qualities understands that the current green is bland, unchallenging on the appraoch (especially with the modern long ball hitter), recovery and putts.

There's no doubt that "Crump's Intent" clearly called for an internal feature.

The pimple or hump might have been rejected due to its size, scale or for agronomic reasons., we really don't know if it was rejected solely due to architectural or playing reasons.

But, what we do know is that Crump wanted an internal feature for specific playability reasons.

That green is crying out to have an internal feature added, per Crump's Intent.

The question is, does PV have the fealty to Crump's Intent ?
Are they sufficiently devoted to carrying out his vision ?

Time will tell.

I believe that Wayno had a picture of the hump in that green.
I think he posted it on this site.
If someone could find it and repost it, it would be helpful and informative.

thanks

[TEPaul]

"The question is, does PV have the fealty to Crump's Intent ?
Are they sufficiently devoted to carrying out his vision ?"


Pat:

I think anyone who's been familiar with Pine Valley and its history, architectural and otherwise, could not possibly help but notice that PV has remained remarkably loyal and true to Crump and what he did and what they understand he intended to do with that course. That is why the course has probably been less architecturally altered over the years than almost any other.

One also needs to review the work and material used in that 1921 Advisory Committee, including the so-called "Remembrances" of Carr and Smith, to understand how that was used by the committee in their attempt to finish the course off as they felt Crump would've wanted it to be.

Of course anyone today could argue with the truth of that but I would ask them what they know of that committee work and how it tried to reflect what Crump might've done? It also seems obvious from what those who knew him well wrote for that committee that Crump himself considered a number of things that he had done to be temporary with which he would go back and improve them.

That 18th green is just one of other interesting examples of that reflected in the archives and the work of that 1921 Advisory Committee. On the other hand, there were other ideas he had that're reflected in those "Remembrances" that would hardly be worthwhile today such as moving the green on #11 up the hill and closer to the windmill or turning the 9th hole into a gentle dogleg left.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have photos of the 18th green at PV when it had the mound in it.

However, I don't know how to post them.

Will someone who knows how, and who can post pictures on this site, send me, via IM, their email address and I will forward the pictures for posting.

Thanks

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Photographs of that enormous mound on #18 (the "Pimple") have been on this website a number of times and they're obviously in the back pages somewhere. I'm sorry, I am no expert on how to use the search feature of this website and I don't know a thing about how to post photos either.

Most of the time the photo posted on here of the 18th green with that old mound was from a Carters Tested Seed Company advertisement that appeared in a couple of the old magazines back in the teens or early 1920s.

As I said to you the other night, it is sort of hard to imagine the dimensions of that mound on that green back then but from everything I've ever seen written or said about it the consensus was pretty much the same----eg it was way too high in relation to its base. Frankly that was true of a number of mound-like features Crump originally had on that course including on #1 and #3. Matter of fact, he once had a depression on the left of #4 green that most all seemed to think was too deep for its diameter dimension.

I suspect the dimensions of that radical mound on #18 was something like about 3 feet high but with a base that may not have been much more than 12-15 feet. So when they took it out in the 1920s I have no idea what they did with the green dimensions around it. Again, as I said to you the other night, probably a better way to have dealt with its removal (given what those "Remembrances" said about how Crump wanted to replace it with some kind of ridge running right) would've been to take the top of it down to maybe about a foot high and then just spread that dimension a bit left and a lot right to the right side of the green essentially creating a low running green ridge throughout that area that would accomplish in play what Crump was intending to do----ie complicate a recovery onto the green for approach shots that had been sliced across that green.

It is definitely not hard to imagine what that would be and what it would basically look like. To me the real question would be where to run it vis-a-vis the front to the back of that green. Something tells me just about halfway up the green would be ideal and to maybe curve it gently with the middle of it being a bit higher up the green than either end. I think you can imagine how cool that might be recoverying to say a front right pin. With that it might be possible to take two very distinct lines.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

It would be helpful if someone could post an accurate topo or scaled schematic of the 18th green.

Then we would be able to discuss location and configuration more precisely.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
It would be helpful if someone could post an accurate topo or scaled schematic of the 18th green."


Patrick:

What are you talking about with an accurate topo of the 18th green at PV? Are you thinking about some post construction topo contour map that incorporated the green contours including that enormous mound on the green (The infamous pimple)? If so, that never existed. The reasons are pretty obvious too if you knew even a modicum of how Crump went about designing and constructing that golf course.

Pre-construction topos do exist though and it's pretty amazing what he did with that entire green-end compared to what say Colt recommended for it and the way that land in there may've been before he routed the 18th hole and green in there.

Let me ask you something----do you have any idea what I'm talking about here and what it means? My sense, AGAIN, is that you don't. I think you need to stay in the proverbial "shallow end of the pool" on some of these discussions and threads. Clearly if you wade out too deep you start to struggle and I don't want to see you completely drown, you know! At least you seem to have some idea of the consequences of wading into the deep end of pools, in a manner of speaking , in and around places like South Beach, Miami!

By the way, Patrick, do you realize your 18th green suggestions are on your 12th hole thread?   

[JESII]

Sorry to interrupt guys, but give me a break...it has been 30 posts since someone else waded into this mess and his post was on topic...do either of you have anything worth talking about?

How about my opinion that the trees in the left bunkers of #12 make it much less likely for someone to try to drive the green from the front tee simply because they cannot see the flag...

Forget the architects intent, and tell me why blindness is generally so revered, but on this particular shot it makes players less aggressive. Does blindness always make players less aggressive? Are there examples of the opposite?

[Patrick_Mucci]

"TEPaul,
It would be helpful if someone could post an accurate topo or scaled schematic of the 18th green."

Patrick:

What are you talking about with an accurate topo of the 18th green at PV? Are you thinking about some post construction topo contour map that incorporated the green contours including that enormous mound on the green (The infamous pimple)? If so, that never existed. The reasons are pretty obvious too if you knew even a modicum of how Crump went about designing and constructing that golf course.

TE, I'm afraid the snow has affected your brain.
I was talking about a contemporary drawing/schematic/topo.

Pre-construction topos do exist though and it's pretty amazing what he did with that entire green-end compared to what say Colt recommended for it and the way that land in there may've been before he routed the 18th hole and green in there.

Let me ask you something----do you have any idea what I'm talking about here and what it means? My sense, AGAIN, is that you don't. I think you need to stay in the proverbial "shallow end of the pool" on some of these discussions and threads. Clearly if you wade out too deep you start to struggle and I don't want to see you completely drown, you know! At least you seem to have some idea of the consequences of wading into the deep end of pools, in a manner of speaking , in and around places like South Beach, Miami!

While it's true that I do understand the consequences of getting in too deep in pools in South Beach, I feel comfortable with my data base at PV.

By the way, Patrick, do you realize your 18th green suggestions are on your 12th hole thread?   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

I think blindness at PV frightens most golfers because the consequences of a failed or misaligned shot are so severe.

It's not like you just chip out or hit to the front section of the green.

At that stage of the round, who wants to risk a par for an 8 or worse.

[JESII]

Good point.

Are there examples you can think of where blindness seems to encourage the more aggressive play?

For some reason my tee shots on #8 at Pine Valley get much further left than you would ever advise, but that's not necessarily aggressive...just bad...

#'s 9 or 10 at Augusta? (I haven't been there)

[TEPaul]

"Sorry to interrupt guys, but give me a break...it has been 30 posts since someone else waded into this mess and his post was on topic...do either of you have anything worth talking about?"

Sully:

On one or more of these numerous "tree removal" threads Pat has started on Pine Valley I've offered a number of times to go hole by hole on a specific tree removal discussion but even though I put the first hole on here in detail nobody seemed to want to pick up on it. Pat said he wanted to go to the course first to analyze it.

I'm willing to have that hole by hole tree removal discussion on here and I started it but there were no takers so what am I supposed to do----have a discussion with myself? 

[TEPaul]

"How about my opinion that the trees in the left bunkers of #12 make it much less likely for someone to try to drive the green from the front tee simply because they cannot see the flag..."


Sully:

That is definitely not just your opinion. A lot of people feel that way including me for many years. With me this whole subject and issue of the trees surrounding those old bunkers on #12 is probably over a decade old.

While driving that green is something I'd never have tried for obvious reasons I very much like the fact that golfers with that kind of length might try it more if they could see that green and the flag better.

I'm basically for anything that increases temptation, that dials down on an over-all one dimensionality in play on any hole and serves to increase the variety and diversity of the way any hole can be or might be played. I recognize that even if some golfers try to drive it a lot more often if they removed those trees and get lucky now and then and maybe make an eagle or so there will be plenty of other times trying something like that will create a trainwreck.

To me widening a scoring spectrum on any hole should always be the underlying intention and goal.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Good point.

Are there examples you can think of where blindness seems to encourage the more aggressive play?

For some reason my tee shots on #8 at Pine Valley get much further left than you would ever advise, but that's not necessarily aggressive...just bad...

# 8 opens up to a rather broad DZ.
While balls are fed down to the right, there are ample margins of error for less than perfect tee shots, and, chances are you'll have a decent lie in the fairway.

But, going for broke on # 12 won't produce such pleasant results on marginal or mishit/aligned shots.

The consequences are too severe.

However, if the trees were cleared to pre 1963 status, where JUST sand and grass resided in those areas, it would encourage the gamble as those players capable of driving the green probably feel supremely comfortable with an intermediate to short recovery shot from the surrounding bunker area.

#'s 9 or 10 at Augusta? (I haven't been there)

Both have wide generous fairways, # 9, like # 8 at PV tends to cant to the right while # 10 tends to cant to the left.

At ANGC even if you miss the fairway and rough, on many holes, recovery is relatively easy, and quadruples aren't a likely consequence of a mishit or marginal shot.

The current dense undergrowth at # 12 at PV makes the risk far outweigh the reward.  That's not the case with the other examples you cited.

[TEPaul]

"TE, I'm afraid the snow has affected your brain.
I was talking about a contemporary drawing/schematic/topo."


Pat:

What would that be? Are you familiar with some topo contour map that was done of the course after it was built? I'm not.

However, the other day on the phone to you I did mention that Govan material that went up for auction at PBA in San Francisco last week. In that material there was an item called (I think by the auction gallery) an "airline leveler survey" (or air line leveling survey) done in 1934 by an engineer by the name of JL Hoppe.

I'd never heard of anything like that with PV before (and that could be because that material has always been with the Govan family and not in the club archives) but after talking to the gallery manager out there for about an hour it seems to be basically a very comprehensive hole by hole and shot by shot yardage survey done back then for some reason. But I don't think it has anything to do with contour lines; it was basically just a professional survey done of the course for yardage.

[TEPaul]

While the 9th and 10th holes at ANGC may seem difficult to some at least one can see plenty of their fairways. On PV's #8 unless you have some experience on that course even though there is a lot of room on that DZ hardly any of it is visible from the tee. Over the years I have noticed that players who know the course well seem to take a pretty aggressive left side line down that blind fairway which doesn't always work out. If they did some comprehensive tree removal within and hanging over some of the left side fairway bunkering on that hole it would be even harder to pick a good line off the tee.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Years ago I used to play an iron or a 3-wood off that tee, until Jay Sigel told me that using more club would get me to the slight upslope in the fairway, thus giving me a much prefered lie for my approach.

Even if you went long on the tee shot, you were faced with only a Sand-Lob Wedge from bunkers or rough for your approach to the green.

[John Mayhugh]

Patrick asked me to post these. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

John,

Thanks.

TEPaul.

The mound appears too high for today's green speeds, but, these photos give you an indication of Crump's original design.

I'm sure that a pronounced feature could be introduced that would accomplish Crump's intent.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()