[Patrick_Mucci]

What kept PV from instituting Crump's intent on the 18th green ?

Was it a fear of failure ? 
Was it the inability to conceptualize and construct his intent ?

How would you interpolate the words of Smith and Carr in producing the desired result ?

PV has a luxury that few clubs have.
LAND.
They have a 10 hole short course that essentially replicates the approach shot to eight of the holes on the regular course.

Why not make it an 11 hole course and craft a green that replicates Crump's intent as revealed by Smith and Carr ?

If the first iteration doesn't get it right, the green could be modified ..... again and again, until a final version, borne of playing experience and testing, could be crafted.

Then, when various versions had been distilled to achieve a final product, the 18th green could be altered to represent what Crump had always intended, namely a green with a spine/ridge/roll.

By undertaking this project and process, a green that represented Crump's intent could be constructed without impacting the 18th green, until, the final version was perfected.  Then, when the final version was crafted, tried and tested, the design could be duplicated on the original version.

Thus, the current 18th would bear no surgical scars or alterations during the discovery process.

The short course would have an extra hole and the 18th green would finally reflect Crump's intent.

Sounds like a noble and prudent project to me

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

How about using that amazing energy and incredible persistence of your's to help with getting Crump's only other design restored to his original intent.   After all, it was a course he designed and got built with his buddies Hugh Wilson, Ab Smith, Franklin Meehan, and George Klauder, after being assigned to the task by Robert Lesley, Ellis Gimbel, and Clarence Geist.

For a Garden City touch, none other than Mr. Walter Travis helped in the latter construction stages.

I bet he'd be a whole lot more interested in seeing that previously unknown (for almost 100 years) part of his golf course design and creation legacy than a single green at a course already near perfection.

[Dan Herrmann]

What was Crump's intent?

I always thought 18 green was an amazing creation.  It's one of the first things you see when you enter the heaven known as PV, and once you see it, you know you're not in Kansas anymore (nothing wrong with Kansas, just a good movie quote that fits here).

[Neil_Crafter]

Pat
Please excuse my ignorance, but who are Smith and Carr? And what did they write?

[TEPaul]

"Was it the inability to conceptualize and construct his intent ?"


Personally, that would be my guess. One should appreciate that when the radical mound on the 18th green was VOTED to be removed there were a great deal of other things the club had to do with and on the golf course at and around that time.

Was Crump's fairly specific interpretative intent (albeit one-off) for the replacement architectural feature for that "temporary" radical feature (the famous or infamous "Pimple") sort of lost in the shuffle?

That would be my guess at this time. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

I'd be happy to accept an active role.

Neil,

Smith and Carr were fellow members and good friends of Crump's, intimately familiar with Pine Valley.

From about 1914 documentation regarding the 18th green appears from them.

Essentially they wrote that Crump was dissatisfied with the green, primarily due to its size and lack of character.  In addition, Crump specifically wanted to challenge and/or punish the sliced approach into the green.

Crump initially conceptualized, designed, constructed and completed a mound to serve that purpose.

Evidently, after the hole was in play, he decided that a spine/ridge/roll would serve a more functional purpose than the mound.

General descriptions of Crump's intended feature are provided by Smith and Carr, some of them dated as early as 1914.

At the time of Crump's death in 1918 the mound remained in the green.

I believe, and TEPaul can confirm, that the 1921 Advisory Committee discussed or recommended the removal of the mound.

In or about 1926 the mound was removed, however, Crump's intended spine/ridge/roll was never installed.

The spine/ridge/roll was described in general terms, including where it should be in the green and where it should end at the back right section of the green.

# 18 was one of Crump's two favorite holes, the other being # 2.

With # 18 being the finishing hole, with such a large green, (over 11,000 sq/ft today, and probably much larger in 1914-1926) Crump determined that it needed challenge and character, two vital components on an 18th hole today.  Yet, the green remains bland and unchallenging on the approach, recovery and putts.

My guess is that the feature may have been unpopular with John Arthur Brown.  If so, there was no way that it would be restored during his tenure.  His reign at PV approached 50 years, hence, by the 1970's it's doubtful if many or any members were aware of the history of the 18th green.  That being the case, there would be no interest to restore the 18th green to reflect Crump's intent because few if any were aware of his intent.

My suggestion is to build an 11th hole on the short course, incorporating an interpretive rendition of Crump's spine/ridge/roll.

This field experiment could be adjusted based on observation, critical analysis and intelligent feedback.  While it's possible to "get it right" the first time, the beauty of using the 11th hole on the short course is that it saves the 18th green from going through the trial and error period.

After a few years experience the club would have done their due diligience, prudent analysis and be adequately prepared to restore the 18th green to reflect Crump's intent.

In addition, it would make the 18th hole a far better hole, more challenging on the approach, recovery and putts, with a green full of character and interest.

[TEPaul]

"My suggestion is to build an 11th hole on the short course, incorporating an interpretive rendition of Crump's spine/ridge/roll.

This field experiment could be adjusted based on observation, critical analysis and intelligent feedback.  While it's possible to "get it right" the first time, the beauty of using the 11th hole on the short course is that it saves the 18th green from going through the trial and error period.

After a few years experience the club would have done their due diligience, prudent analysis and be adequately prepared to restore the 18th green to reflect Crump's intent."


Patrick:

I'm quite certain you will continue to argue the prudence of that suggestion of yours until the cows come home, but My God Man, I'm sure glad you aren't in charge of spending money at my club and I bet Pine Valley is too!!! 

Build and entirely new HOLE on the Short Course replicating the 18th green and go through a few years of experimentation on it JUST TO PERFECT a roll/ridge for the 18th green as it has been described Crump intended it to be???

This is why clubs pick and hire a really good golf course architect. It is not very complicated to figure out a roll/ridge that Crump intended for the 18th green. The idea of building an entirely new hole on the Short Course as an experiment to perfect a roll/ridge for the 18th green is, to say the very least, both excessive and unnecessarily costly and time consuming for no real practical reason.

What if, for instance, there is no landform on the Short Course that would attach ideally to the Short Course that is similar to the 18th hole on the Main Course?? Do you expect them to get some D8s in there to make a similar landform to the 18th hole or perhaps just find one out there somewhere separated from the rest of the Short Course and just do an entire hole simply for an experiment with a ridge/roll on an existing green that probably entails a couple of hundred square feet? 

Who built the Taj Mahal? Do you suppose there are a couple of experimental models out there somewhere we have heretofore been unaware of that were built so he could get the final product just right?

By the way, Tom Fazio would have liked to have done a copy of some of the other greens and approaches from the main course out in the Short Course area but he admitted he didn't because he couldn't find the appropriate somewhat similar landforms on the Short Course. What does that tell you?? 

[TEPaul]

As to why some ridge/roll was never done on the 18th green to Crump's recorded intentions when the infamous Pimple (that was apparently considered by Crump to be temporary) was removed in the mid 1920s, that is of course a good question and one that probably doesn't have a documentable answer at this point.

However, I can tell you that there was a whole lot going on with the golf course emanating out of that so-called 1921 Advisory Committee and it appears their primary and first concern was to get the condition of the whole course (the grass) in decent shape, and that was a massive and daunting prospect and job for them.

And that is apparently why it appears the removal of that mound on #18 took up to about five years to get around to. Not just that but there are a pretty good number of things that the 1921 Advisory Committee actually approved to be done architecturally that it appears PV NEVER got around to completing!

Another reason it may've evolved that way is there is very little question, at least in my mind, that PV got into a mode and frame of mind that they just didn't want to dick around architecturally with Crump's course. I think the reason for that is they just had so much admiration for what he had managed to do out there before he died suddenly. In a real way this is a distinct difference with the way PV evolved over the years compared to most all other famous golf courses who went through a helluva lot more cycles of redesign over the years.

I guess PV's thinking all these years has been "If it ain't broke, why consider trying to fix it or change it somehow?"

I don't mean to imply that the 18th green would probably not be even better if Crump's idea for a ridge/roll was installing running from the area around where that Pimple once was and to the right and rear of the green. I think it probably would be and I don't believe it would be difficult at all to get right and satisfy what Crump intended to do in that area.

Patrick:

To me the far more interesting project that PV might want to consider someday would be to finish off what Crump was right in the middle of doing on #7 when he died.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

"Yet, the green remains bland and unchallenging on the approach, recovery and putts."

I just dont understand this Pat..do you really think that the green is that easy to putt.
When the pin is on that right side and you are putting from the back left or even middle left..that is a really tricky putt.


As for the approach,,now that I am hitting something like at least a four iron into that green..it is no longer unchallenging on the approach either.

You know Pine Valley wau better than me..but to me those two points you made are open to discussion.

[TEPaul]

"You know Pine Valley way better than me..but to me those two points you made are open to discussion."

Michael W-P:

The hell he does. Just because he says he's played there a number of times going back about 45 years definitely does not mean he knows that course and its nuances better than you do.

I will guarantee anyone that playing that golf course in a single Crump Cup provides a golfer with a better education of that course, its playabilities and architectural nuances than playing it occassionally even over 45 years!


PS:
I think in your first sentence you must have meant to say you DON'T understand not that you do understand Patrick's description of that green as too bland.

One thing that makes it a whole lot less bland than in Crump's day is the significant difference in green speed.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'm quite certain you will continue to argue the prudence of that suggestion of yours until the cows come home, but My God Man, I'm sure glad you aren't in charge of spending money at my club and I bet Pine Valley is too!!! 

I believe my suggestion represents an investment in the golf course.
PV has always invested in their golf course, hence, I believe the expense is a prudent long term investment that will bring rewards to members and guests alike.

Build and entirely new HOLE on the Short Course replicating the 18th green and go through a few years of experimentation on it JUST TO PERFECT a roll/ridge for the 18th green as it has been described Crump intended it to be???

You're making progress.
You're starting to get the picture.

This is why clubs pick and hire a really good golf course architect. It is not very complicated to figure out a roll/ridge that Crump intended for the 18th green.

Perhaps you've never seen that program on the "Discovery and Learning Channels"   "When good architects go bad" or "Mistakes that Clubs Make"

The golf world is full of architectural mishaps, even on simple projects.
Why subject the 18th green to risk when you have a clone to work on ?

The idea of building an entirely new hole on the Short Course as an experiment to perfect a roll/ridge for the 18th green is, to say the very least, both excessive and unnecessarily costly and time consuming for no real practical reason.

I disagree.
First, the cost is minimal.
You build a tee or teeing area (fairway), and you build a green.
The hole serves two purposes.
First, it's an addition to the short course and secondly, it's a field laboratory for the 18th green.

What if, for instance, there is no landform on the Short Course that would attach ideally to the Short Course that is similar to the 18th hole on the Main Course?? Do you expect them to get some D8s in there to make a similar landform to the 18th hole or perhaps just find one out there somewhere separated from the rest of the Short Course and just do an entire hole simply for an experiment with a ridge/roll on an existing green that probably entails a couple of hundred square feet? 

As to the landform, it doesn't take much of a land form to construct a tee or replicate a fairway area, and, it doesn't take much to replicate the punchbowl like green even if you built the green to 11 K+.

You and I look at things differently.
You look at all the negatives, all the obstacles, whereas I look at all the positives and achieving the desired result.

There's not a doubt in my mind that with the assistance of a competent architect, even YOU could replicate the approach shot and green on # 18.

Who built the Taj Mahal? Do you suppose there are a couple of experimental models out there somewhere we have heretofore been unaware of that were built so he could get the final product just right?


There's a difference.
The Taj Mahal is a static structure.
A golf course is a living organism that serves as an interactive field of play.


By the way, Tom Fazio would have liked to have done a copy of some of the other greens and approaches from the main course out in the Short Course area but he admitted he didn't because he couldn't find the appropriate somewhat similar landforms on the Short Course. What does that tell you?? 

Possibly, It tells me that he didn't use his imagination enough or that he was restricted in his use of time, men and machinery.

I have every confidence that if Fazio was given the directive to fulfill my suggestion,  he could do so in a very short time.

Remember these words.

"You see things; and you say, "Why".
But, I dream things that never were; and say, "Why not ?" "

You can be a naysayer or you can be a man of vision, the choice is yours

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Yet, the green remains bland and unchallenging on the approach, recovery and putts."

I just dont understand this Pat..do you really think that the green is that easy to putt.

YES, absolutely.

Remember Michael, that your experience and recollection is probably contexted solely in your experience playing in the Crump Cup, when the greens get to super to ungodly to ridiculous speeds.

I've played those greens when they were barely at 6.
I've played them when they've been at 8, 10 and maybe 12, which borders on the impossible.

So, don't confine your assessment to the greens when they're intended to be at their absolute peak speeds, but, when they're at a broader spectrum of speeds, which tends to be lower than when you play them.

When the pin is on that right side and you are putting from the back left or even middle left..that is a really tricky putt.

Perhaps when the greens are running at high speeds, but, for normal play, 362 days of the year, that's not usually the case.

As for the approach,,now that I am hitting something like at least a four iron into that green..it is no longer unchallenging on the approach either.


Perhaps, but, you're also probably playing from the new right side tee which extends the hole about 50+ yards, a tee that's rarely used, except for competitions and the occassional superior player.

And, even then, the green is receptive to approaches with its concave nature.  If the green was flat or convex, it would be far more difficult.

Remember too, that shots hit left, especially faded or sliced shots off the sloped fairway, tend to get bounces to the green.
 
You know Pine Valley wau better than me..but to me those two points you made are open to discussion.

The discussion window will always remain open to you.

Just don't tell that idiot-savant TEPaul.

I've told him that the window is only open from 1:58 am until 2:02 am.
Although I phrased it differently. 
When he asked what time the window was open, I told him that the window was open from, "two to two to two two". 
He still thinks I was doing my impersonation of the whistle on the train that passes by the golf course.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Thanks for your response on Reply #10 (your Reply #11 is inconsequential).

I rest my case! 

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I believe that Ernie Ransome and Tom Fazio did a spectacular job on the short course, it's really quite a marvel.

I also believe that it's well within their abilities to craft a replica of # 18.

And, I believe it's well within their abilities to introduce the spine/ridge/roll into that green, then FINE TUNE it, until it's ready for introduction on the 18th green.

As a related question, how familiar are you with The Medalist ?

Specifically, all the changes that were made to the third hole, the par 3, and all the changes made to # 17 and # 18 ?

Don't be so quick to think that everyone gets it right the first time.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Patrick...
Point well taken and with regards the last portion of the post

[TEPaul]

"As a related question, how familiar are you with The Medalist ?
Specifically, all the changes that were made to the third hole, the par 3, and all the changes made to # 17 and # 18 ?
Don't be so quick to think that everyone gets it right the first time."


Patrick:

I've never seen The Medalist and I don't know a thing about it.

However, I do know if they wanted to create a contour on PV's 18th green that addressed Crump's intent they do not need to build a complete hole on the Short course to test how to do it. If you were trying to be humorous with that idea I would take it that way but apparently you're serious. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

It's obvious, as attested to by 83 years of inactivity, that embarking on a restoration or Crump's intent is not something the club was willling to rush into.

Hence, my suggestion has merit.

It allows the club to design, build, test and fine tune a reasonable facsimile without compromising the current green.

Once the final form was decided upon it could be recreated in the 18th green.

The cost for the entire project is relatively low. 
I'd even be willing to provide some of the initial funding if asked to do so.

My suggestion is both prudent and conservative and would produce the best possible results, results borne of actual play and experience.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

The only conceivable reason you're defending your idea of the proper process to create that roll on the 18th green is because you thought of it----nothing more.

It just isn't necessary to build an entire new hole on the Short Course to successfully create a roll on the 18th green via Crump's intent and the expense of your idea is ridiculous. It would be a couple of thousand dollars vs well over a hundred and some thousand dollars to construct and then there's the on-going additional cost of maintenance of an additional hole out there that probably has no chance of intelligently fitting into the Short Course routing.

As far as 83 years of inactivity in creating a roll like what was mentioned in those "Remembrances" I would say that the club has probably not even been aware of those "Remembrances" of the 18th green and numerous other things Crump had in mind for the course for probably over seven decades! 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

The only conceivable reason you're defending your idea of the proper process to create that roll on the 18th green is because you thought of it----nothing more.

I'm not defending it, I'm advocating it.
And, I'm advocating it because from a practical perspective it solves many problems and overcomes several objections.

It just isn't necessary to build an entire new hole on the Short Course to successfully create a roll on the 18th green via Crump's intent and the expense of your idea is ridiculous.


The expense is nominal at PV.

It would be a couple of thousand dollars vs well over a hundred and some thousand dollars to construct and then there's the on-going additional cost of maintenance of an additional hole out there that probably has no chance of intelligently fitting into the Short Course routing.

You're just not familiar with construction costs.
Your numbers are absurd.

As to ongoing maintainance, from a purely mathematical perspective it's a about a 9 % increase to the maintainance budget of the SHORT course and probably less than a 1 % increase to the overall budget.

As to fitting it into the short course routing, common sense should tell you that you wouldn't insert it INTO the routing, you'd add it on to either the beginning or end of the routing.

Open your eyes, see the future, be, be your future.

As far as 83 years of inactivity in creating a roll like what was mentioned in those "Remembrances" I would say that the club has probably not even been aware of those "Remembrances" of the 18th green and numerous other things Crump had in mind for the course for probably over seven decades! 

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I'm not going to carry on this ridiculous discussion with you. Your suggestion or what you're advocating or whatever you call it is nonsensical no matter how many times you come back with the same response in green letters.

The process of creating a ridge-roll on that 18th green if the club thought it was appropriate would not be difficult to do.

The contours on about 2/3 of those greens have been changed in one way or another since Crump died anyway (obviously you aren't aware of most any of them and when and how they were redone or by whom) and they sure as hell never had to go build another hole out in the woods there to experiment with some altered green or contour first! 

You have so much to learn about the history and evolution of that golf course and it becomes more apparent every time you make another post about PV.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

I'm not going to carry on this ridiculous discussion with you. Your suggestion or what you're advocating or whatever you call it is nonsensical no matter how many times you come back with the same response in green letters.

You've yet to provide a rational response as to why it wouldn't work.

The process of creating a ridge-roll on that 18th green if the club thought it was appropriate would not be difficult to do.

It might not be difficult to do, but, it might be difficult to get it "right" the first time.

My method avoids trial and error

The contours on about 2/3 of those greens have been changed in one way or another since Crump died anyway (obviously you aren't aware of most any of them and when and how they were redone or by whom) and they sure as hell never had to go build another hole out in the woods there to experiment with some altered green or contour first! 

That's because the short course didn't exist when they changed them.

But, now that it does exist, why not take advantage of it ?
It's the prudent thing to do.

You have so much to learn about the history and evolution of that golf course and it becomes more apparent every time you make another post about PV.

There are those who feel to the contrary.

[TEPaul]

"You've yet to provide a rational response as to why it wouldn't work."


Patrick:

I certainly have. If you can't recognize that spending about $100,000+ to build a whole new hole simply for that reason when they could easily create a roll/ridge on the 18th for a couple of thousand max then I'm afraid you must be really obtuse and it would be impossible for anyone to help you understand how unnecessary your suggestion is.

I agree with you----eg it would be great to see them consider putting a ridge/roll on the right of that green as Crump apparently suggested in place of that infamous mound (Pimple) but they most certainly don't need to build an entirely new hole on the Short Course to experiment with it first. Again, I'd like to see it considered as I know you would but I would prefer that PV not see your suggestion and just laugh the whole thing right out of the door which they surely would do if they actually read what you're suggesting! 

You've had a whole lot of crazy ideas on here over the years but this one really takes the cake! 

[TEPaul]

"That's because the short course didn't exist when they changed them.
But, now that it does exist, why not take advantage of it ?
It's the prudent thing to do."


WHY???

The fact is perhaps 2/3 of the greens or some of their contours have been changed over the years after Crump died and they all work fine. For starters, you don't even know where they are, what they are or what was done or how so how in the world could you claim otherwise? 

Let me ask you something Patrick. You've been on a lot of green committees and other committees over the years, right? And you've been fired from just about every one of them, haven't you? I think the kind of suggestion you're making here about PV's 18th green pretty much explains why. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

"You've yet to provide a rational response as to why it wouldn't work."

Patrick:

I certainly have. If you can't recognize that spending about $100,000+ to build a whole new hole simply for that reason when they could easily create a roll/ridge on the 18th for a couple of thousand max then I'm afraid you must be really obtuse and it would be impossible for anyone to help you understand how unnecessary your suggestion is.

If it costs $ 100,000+ to build a teeing area and an 11,000 sq/ft green 170 yards away, in sandy soil, you're making a great profit.

You, like too many politicians focused on bonuses rather than the underlying problems don't understand that the money isn't the problem.


I agree with you----eg it would be great to see them consider putting a ridge/roll on the right of that green as Crump apparently suggested in place of that infamous mound (Pimple) but they most certainly don't need to build an entirely new hole on the Short Course to experiment with it first.

Here's another reason why I disagree with you.

Most people don't like change.  Club members and golfers are no different.
The prospect of changing the green would be met with resistance from various sectors of the membership.  Few could visualize the reasons for the spine/ridge and even fewer could understand its intended impact on play.  It would be a controversial introduction that might not gain traction just due to the resistance to change.

But, if a replica of the intended green could be constructed, members could play it, understand it, question the reasons for its existance and be informed as to why it's there.  Then, they could make a comparitive analysis based on the play of both greens.

Over time, I'm certain that the green with the spine/ridge would win out over the current, bland green.

Thus, the new 18th short hole green would represent an investment in the future of the golf course, while it served its dual role of being part of the short course.

Money is an excuse, not a reason to negate a process that would result in the improvement to the golf course.

And, whether it was 50K, 100K or 250K, doesn't matter.
Just like the cost of the cottages didn't matter.
PV did it right with them and they could get it right with introducing Crump's intentions to a new green on the short course.

Again, I'd like to see it considered as I know you would but I would prefer that PV not see your suggestion and just laugh the whole thing right out of the door which they surely would do if they actually read what you're suggesting! 

I don't think so.
I think prudent men would view my suggestion as one with merit since it solves several real life problems.

You've had a whole lot of crazy ideas on here over the years but this one really takes the cake! 

My creative ideas are what seperate me from others.

I'll guarantee you that the concept of a short course replicating 8 of the holes on the regular golf course was looked at as a crazy idea prior to its introduction.  But, once completed, almost everyone applauded that crazy idea and the finished product.

The same would be true with # 18.

Let's hope we get to see it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"That's because the short course didn't exist when they changed them.
But, now that it does exist, why not take advantage of it ?
It's the prudent thing to do."

WHY???

Why ?  Why do I have to repeat myself ?

The answer is, because it addresses the political issues while expanding the short course, while providing a field lab for the 18th green.

The fact is perhaps 2/3 of the greens or some of their contours have been changed over the years after Crump died and they all work fine.
color=green]

Working fine and working better are two different issues.
There's not a question in my mind that # 18 WITH Crump's intented change would be a far BETTER green and hole.  And, I know that you AGREE with that.

For starters, you don't even know where they are, what they are or what was done or how so how in the world could you claim otherwise? 

Let me ask you something Patrick. You've been on a lot of green committees and other committees over the years, right? And you've been fired from just about every one of them, haven't you?

I've NEVER been fired from a Green Committee.
I thought that was what happened to you at GM.

I think the kind of suggestion you're making here about PV's 18th green pretty much explains why. 

Actually, many of my "crazy" suggestions have been adopted at a number of clubs.  Unfortunately, more need to be adopted. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()