[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

and, why aren't those alterations corrected/removed when the impact is discovered.

A perfect example are the two Cedar/Fir trees to the right of the 15th fairway, just short of the 15th green at PV.

If you look at the historical aerials, you'll see that in 1957, no trees existed.
When you look at the aerials following 1957 you'll see their growth and progressive intrusion.

If Jamie Slonis could re-post his Google Aerial of # 12 that appeared in the thread about # 12, you'll see how invasive/intrusive they've become.

The question is, why have they been allowed to remain, clearly they would seem to be contrary to Crump's intent

What you can't see in the aerial is the steep pitch of the rough to the right of the 15th fairway in that area.

In addition, the fairway narrows dramatically, remains pitched, and is flanked on the left by unpleasant surroundings, so the area presents plenty of difficulty should the golfer miss the fairway.

The second question is:

How long after a hole is altered, or a feature added, does that alteration and/or feature become accepted as an inherent element in the hole ?

[john_stiles]

About the second, in the case of what some think offensive trees,   it is usually a long time.

Once played with an 'architect' who asked why are those trees planted , almost in a row,  next to the cart path.   I said so the  'big tree cutting machine'  can go down the cart path and cut them down even when the ground is soft and mushy in the dead of winter.   The trees are still there, almost 13 years now.

[john_stiles]

As to  'why aren't those alterations corrected/removed when the impact is discovered'.

Because some think it would cost too much to roll back what is essentailly a $1 golf ball.

[TEPaul]

"The second question is:
How long after a hole is altered, or a feature added, does that alteration and/or feature become accepted as an inherent element in the hole ?"



Patrick:

As you know almost nothing is more delightful to me than to see you put your foot in your mouth on this website and so these Pine Valley threads you've been starting and some of the things you've been saying on them has been a virtual Godsend to me!   


You're the guy who has been telling us you've been familiar with Pine Valley for about forty five years, right? That must be either pretty questionable or you must not be very observant or else you must have a pretty bad memory.

You mention those two fir trees you see on the right and short of the 15th green and you wonder how long it takes to correct something like the planting of trees in the wrong place or in places Crump did not have them or perhaps want them.

Apparently you are totally unaware that app. 5-6 years ago there were a pretty good number of those fir trees just to the right of that 15th green down in that dip that have all been removed. ALL GONE, Patrick!

I've got too much to do and not enough time to do it to be constantly spending my time correcting the inaccurate information you put on here and always trying to help you remove your foot from your mouth. 


PS:
Do you remember that line of fir trees that used to be planted directly along the left line of the 18th tee and the left line of bunkers on #10 green? You probably haven't even noticed that they're all gone too! 

PPS:
You told me Deb says you have a very selective memory, right, Pat? No kidding, and a very wise gal she is.

[PCCraig]

Patrick-

Behind the 6th hole (and left of the 2nd) at TCC-Brookline there used to be three huge elm trees that framed the green and gave a sense of the green location on the blind second shot. Those were taken out and now the hole is far harder to judge. Makes a HUGE difference.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

You mention those two fir trees you see on the right and short of the 15th green and you wonder how long it takes to correct something like the planting of trees in the wrong place or in places Crump did not have them or perhaps want them.

Apparently you are totally unaware that app. 5-6 years ago there were a pretty good number of those fir trees just to the right of that 15th green down in that dip that have all been removed. ALL GONE, Patrick!

All gone you say ?

Well, take a look at the Google aerial in post # 29 from JSlonis on the "Visuals" thread I started.  I believe the aerial is from 2008 and the two Cedar Trees are still there.

Either they magically sprang back up to maturity, or they were NEVER cut down.

JSlonis,
Could you please repost that aerial, I tried to copy and paste it, but couldn't.

Perhaps when the PV expert sees that the trees are still there, he'll recognize the error of his ways.

I've got too much to do and not enough time to do it to be constantly spending my time correcting the inaccurate information you put on here and always trying to help you remove your foot from your mouth. 


I know you're double jointed, hence, I think you might have placed you foot squarely up your own ***.  Please look at Jamie's aerial, it's informative.

PS:
Do you remember that line of fir trees that used to be planted directly along the left line of the 18th tee and the left line of bunkers on #10 green? You probably haven't even noticed that they're all gone too! 

I did notice that, now, if they'll just get rid of the trees behind # 10.

PPS:
You told me Deb says you have a very selective memory, right, Pat? No kidding, and a very wise gal she is.

What Deb said was that I had the best selective memory she ever encountered.  That I could remember details from 40 years ago, but couldn't remember why I came home late last Saturday night

[JSlonis]

Pat,

Is the the one you were referring to?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

JSlonis,

Yes,

Thanks

TEPaul,

The aerial was taken subsequent to 5 to 6 years ago, when you alleged that these trees were removed.

Perhaps your memory is faltering as you're approaching Medicare eligibility 

[JSlonis]

Here's a bird's eye view of #15 that Pat has mentioned.  This site gives a nice view of the course overall.

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=qmxwm38rkbjj&style=b&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=22510191&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
The aerial was taken subsequent to 5 to 6 years ago, when you alleged that these trees were removed.
Perhaps your memory is faltering as you're approaching Medicare eligibility.   "


Patrick:

I realize that. That's what I said. Perhaps you should try sticking to simpler ideas and simpler words that you understand and not use ones you don't or that don't apply such as benign neglect and subsequent. 

Again, there used to be some trees to the right of that green that're gone now. 

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

"TEPaul,
The aerial was taken subsequent to 5 to 6 years ago, when you alleged that these trees were removed.

Perhaps your memory is faltering as you're approaching Medicare eligibility.   "


Patrick:

I realize that. That's what I said.
Perhaps you should try sticking to simpler ideas and simpler words that you understand and not use ones you don't or that don't apply such as benign neglect and subsequent. 

Again, there used to be some trees to the right of that green that're gone now.

I don't care about those trees, they're irrelevant.

In my opening post I specifically cited the TWO CEDAR TREES just short of the 15th green, the ones clearly visible in the aerials JSlonis posted.

Please stick to the specific topic and not some phantom trees elsewhere on the property 

[TEPaul]

“I don't care about those trees, they're irrelevant.
In my opening post I specifically cited the TWO CEDAR TREES just short of the 15th green, the ones clearly visible in the aerials JSlonis posted.
Please stick to the specific topic and not some phantom trees elsewhere on the property.”




Patrick:

If you don’t care about those fir trees that used to be to the right of the 15th green (about 20 yards from those two you mentioned) that have been removed fairly recently then do not make remarks like the following on this website and I won’t comment on some of the ridiculous things you say on here, particularly about Pine Valley and trees.


“How the slightest alterations can dramatically/adversely affect a hole,
and, why aren't those alterations corrected/removed when the impact is discovered.”


For starters those two fir trees about 30 yards short of the green don't really dramatically or adversely affect anything. The ones to the right of the green sure used to though because a whole lot of shots are missed immediately right of that green.

[TEPaul]

The next order of business I suppose will have to be on educating you why it would not be a good idea today to remove all the trees behind the 10th green as you have also mindlessly suggested on here recently.

But I don't really mind having to spend all this time on here correcting the things you say about Pine Valley because it simply serves the purpose of the viewers on this website being able to see that some people who think they know what their talking about and try to act like they know what they're talking about have no real idea what they're talking about unless and until they take the time to do the research to really understand the architectural and maintenance history and evolution of a golf course, particularly a very important one like Pine Valley!

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

I'll bet you that more second shots are missed, short right, than green high right on #  15, thus bringing those two Cedar Trees into play on the approach.

Someone planted them between 1957 and 1963.

I would guess JAB.
When did his reign at PV end ?

[TEPaul]

"Someone planted them between 1957 and 1963.
I would guess JAB.
When did his reign at PV end?"


Patrick:

Is that right-----they were planted between 1957 and 1963? Does the stagger of aerials show that?

If so, that's interesting and yes that would mean that John Arthur Brown probably had them planted as basically nothing went on around there that he didn't know about or approve of all those years he ran the club. His approximately 50 year reign at PV ended when he died suddenly in 1977. After Brown, the president was Ernie Ransome, a wonderful guy and terrific president of PV and real presence in golf and in an international golf connection but I don't think there's ever been any secret about the fact that Ernie did love trees.

Ernie did a ton for PV, he brought in Bator that really turned some problematic agronomy around, got the 1985 Walker Cup and had the Short Course built. He has a wonderful sense of humor too about a lot of things as do his friends with him down there. There was a roast for him down there some time ago----and somebody got up and apparently said: "Ernie, here's to you and we all hope you have a long, long wonderful life but when you do go we're going to take your ashes and sprinkle them on the right 8th green and then blow the God-damned thing up!"    

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

I'd agree that Ernie becoming President was plus for PV.

With respect to JAB, when someone stays in office/power that long, typically, their perspective is transitioned from custodian to owner.  The golf course becomes their golf course and the vision for the golf course isn't the preservation of Crump's intent (if anyone knows what that was on a hole by hole basis), it's the visualizaton of their intent.

In some ways longevity can be a positive and in some ways it can be a negative, it all depends on the perspective of the Major Domo.

As one gets well on in years, they sometimes become very conservative, very defense oriented in their approach to life, especially with money. 
That perspective affects everything they control in their lives.  You rarely see a man in his 80's buying a yellow Corvette or double breasted Ermenegildo Zegna suits.

I think that that perspective spills over to those things in their life that they control, like a golf course.

All too often we hear the words that something needs "fresh ideas" or a "fresh start" and that may have been the case with PV.

JAB became an institution, he was synonymous with PV.

My guess is that PV suffered from benign neglect, not overt neglect, and it was probably due to JAB's perspective as he advanced in age.

And, with his strong personality, I don't think anyone was prepared to challenge him regarding his decisions, so it was easier to just let things go.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I guess if someone (such as yourself) is going to try to maintain that PV under the fifty year presidency of JAB suffered through "benign neglect" then that someone should probably explain in detail (like hole by hole) what precisely they mean by the term "benign neglect."

All-in over his entire reign (as some called it and still do) I would say JAB was probably one of the best and most exemplary custodians of one of the world's premier golf courses that anyone could ever find. The fact is PV during his 50 year presidency never lost sight of the aura and importance to that place of George Crump. Some fairly uninformed outliers, like a Tom MacWood, may try to claim on here that PV or even people from this area unnecessarily glorified Crump and continue to do so beyond what he ever deserved but I have always maintained---SO WHAT?, at least that serves to preserve the basic architecture of a course from constantly being dicked around with and changed from its original intent and essential character.

As far as I know all JAB ever did to architecturally change that course was to remove the highly unpopular "pimple" from the 18th green (that he obviously understood Crump was going to do anyway since that was pretty prominently written and in the archives which JAB had access to since he did write the club's first history book). And he also apparently added the back tee on #12.

Did the trees grow over time? Of course, how could that be stopped?  Did he plant some others? Apparently so. And so did Crump! 

Did PV become too treed up over time. Yes it did and that's why I think they have cleared some away in the last few years and why I think the best policy would be to simply remove the trees that surround and are in the sightlines of the course's existing bunkering.   

You and I are apparently making suggestions about tree removal at PV that they are in the process of doing anyway, so what exactly is the point of all these threads of yours about the trees other than for you to understand the details of the architectural history and evolution of the course in that vein better. For that, and for the same price of eggs, you could just call me up and ask me, you know?!

It seems to me the only difference between most all our suggestions and what they are seemingly in the process of doing is they just aren't on your proposed schedule to do it. To that I also say----SO WHAT? If you ran the place or belonged to it than maybe that schedule would be different or faster. But you don't run it or even belong to it and either do I, so relax, live with it, and even you might notice it will probably get done eventually.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

One doesn't need to be a historian or have a direct pipeline to Crump to understand what's  happened over the years at PV.

The picture below tells that story.

With regard to JAB's reign, do you think he had the same perspective in year one that he had in year 50 ?

Did he have the same vision ?

Was he willing to spend whatever it took to preserve or restore Crump's design intent ?
   
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=qmyh128rjyc6&style=b&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=22509997&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

What you're missing is topic/thread specific.

The insertion of those two Cedar trees dramatically altered the play of # 15.

Crump didn't plant them, JAB planted them.

The question is, why do they remain intact ?

The second question is, when architectural additives are injected or thrust upon the golf course, do they have a limited shelf life, or, once they get past a set period of time, do they become accepted as an inherent part of the golf course ?

In case you're not aware of it, that's not a PV specific question.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
One doesn't need to be a historian or have a direct pipeline to Crump to understand what's  happened over the years at PV."

Patrick:

One sure as hell does. Understanding the details of a course's architectural history and evolution is basically all important.


"The picture below tells that story."

That picture might tell you some story but I doubt it's the same story it tells me! 



"With regard to JAB's reign, do you think he had the same perspective in year one that he had in year 50?"

I wouldn't know about that but I do know in the broad scheme of things JAB could've been the most exemplary preservationist of the ARCHITECTURE of a premier golf course out there. If not why don't you name me one who was better---who dicked around with the architecture of a premier course less than he did?


"Did he have the same vision?"


I doubt it---like all of us who grow old he probably bought some glasses over the years or even had to have their perscriptions changed as time when on.



"Was he willing to spend whatever it took to preserve or restore Crump's design intent ?"

Dumb question Patrick as even you should know the word and idea of architectural RESTORATION virtually did not exist before JAB died in 1977.


PS:
We've even been trying to identify what the first real "restoration" project was in America or the world. I have some vague ideas but I sure do bet you don't. 

[JMEvensky]

Will you guys please call a truce on the trees at PV so Pat can have time to continue the NLGA tour?We've got a logjam at 3 green.

[Kirk Gill]

Perhaps this thread is only intended to address one hole at Pine Valley, but since I don't get out there much, I thought I'd take a look at this question from a slightly different perspective.

Patrick, if I take as a true statement that the slightest of alterations can dramatically and adversely affect a hole, would you also agree to the opposite, that there are slight alterations that might dramatically affect a hole for the better?

In times when course owners want to spend as little money as possible but might still be interested in improvements to their courses, can you suggest examples of some alterations that provide maximum bang for the buck?

Also, an aside - what do you have against Ermenegildo Zegna suits?

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

What truce? Pat's the one starting all these threads on PV and trees. Why is he doing it? Because he's convinced he will get them to do things his way. I made a massive mistake the other night on the phone of filling him in on a slight bit of historical information and he just took it and took off like a rocket on this basic subject. It's a perfect example of how dangerous a little knowledge can be.

[JMEvensky]

Jeff:

What truce? Pat's the one starting all these threads on PV and trees. Why is he doing it? Because he's convinced he will get them to do things his way. I made a massive mistake the other night on the phone of filling him in on a slight bit of historical information and he just took it and took off like a rocket on this basic subject. It's a perfect example of how dangerous a little knowledge can be.

You could always threaten to have him put on PV's Do Not Invite list.Maybe they could post his picture in the guardhouse.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()