[archie_struthers]

 


Word has leaked out that a couple of guys have been hit some balls or observed same from the new  on #4 at Pine Valley (et tu Jamie S)   Can anyone chime in on how it looks and plays ,   as I have some questions ?

[scott_wood]

lvisually "awkward", as it's set much lower than the current tee and the tee itself is "built up".....
AND, a pretty good schlepp back, up and down.....

that said, it certainly will challenge the player for length, as the carry to merely reach the crest is prodigous.....

one strategic decision aspect which will now be missing ,imo, is hiting to teh correct line...
the error of hitting the ball from the old tee too far over the crest,or pulled left too far, will not be a concern to many....

it is a BRUTE from the new tips!!!!

[Sean Leary]

What is the max distance from the tips with all of the new tees. I spoke with a member on Friday, and he thought it was close to 7400.  I know that before it was like 6999 yards after the prior lengthening, but 7400 doesn't sound right to me. He also said there is a 185 yard tee on 10 that I wasn't aware of....

[JSlonis]

Word has leaked out that a couple of guys have been hit some balls or observed same from the new  on #4 at Pine Valley (et tu Jamie S)   Can anyone chime in on how it looks and plays ,   as I have some questions ?

Archie,

I have played from the new back tee on #4 and it is quite a challenging addition.  To me, I think visually it looks quite good.  I didn't think of it as awkward, just different because it's new.  As you know, the terrain there wasn't really conducive for easily adding length to that hole, and from what Crump's original intention was for that hole, additional length was needed.  I think the new tee fits in well with its surroundings and it doesn't appear overbuilt.  It adds about 40-50 yards to the hole and I believe the card yardage is 489 or 499.

When I first stepped on the new tee, I was really struck with the visuals.  It looks forever up that hill, but the reality is it's not as long as it looks.  99% of the golfers that play Pine Valley will probably never use that tee.  I hit a decent drive, not my best and had 4 iron into the green from the top of the hill.  Quite a different result from the 3 wood/7 or 8 iron I'd hit from the old tee.  Under ideal conditions, I think the longer hitting amateur will be able to get it to the bottom of the fairway with a really solid tee shot and the large majority will be hitting an approach from the top of the hill.  From  my experience there, it seems as if the normal prevailing wind on #4 is usually a bit downwind.

Sean,

The total yardage is just over 7000 with the addition of the new 4th tee.  Unless there is some top secret location I've never seen, there is NO tee on #10 that plays 185 yards.

[archie_struthers]

 

[JESII]

Arch,

Was that middle one your question? 


I heard from a good source the other day that it'll take 275 to get up to the flat and a hair more than 300 to get over the hill.


I suggested to Lenny last fall that they install protective glass on the clubhouse there because a few more balls will be coming that way off of three woods than 7 irons...


How does you feel about architects intent?

[archie_struthers]

 

Hey guys , was messing with a new device and it got truncated earlier , although my less wordy response may have been better for some.


I love the idea stretching the  tee shot for the better players for tournament play, although it shouldn't be so deep that no one can get to the bottom. Worrying about locking it up in the bunker might not have been in Crump's mind , but it sure has been in plenty of other people's over the years .  Sometimes three wood is too much for the longer hitters to lay up with , and rescue or long iron was the club of choice for the tee shot.

A few blokes have complained over the years that the "Valley " takes driver out of your hand on too many holes, and didn't love it for that reason.  I thought that to be a pretty myopic way to look at such a great golf  course but the new tees certainly have addressed the equipment advances that precipitated comments such as these to a great extent

I've thought that the new bunkers on top of the hill were unnecessary , and in fact made the hole less interesting. Perhaps the new tee will bring them more under scrutiny. Though beautifully constructed , they removed some quirk and strategy from the hole for the shorter hitters who used to hug the treeline and hope for a good bounce to the flat spot at the bottom of the hill. Thye are fairly penal , and challenging them seems rather stupid.



I really can't wait to see the tee finished and take a couple of swings , hope to get it past "Rocky's" belly !   

[JESII]

FAT CHANCE!

[Tom_Doak]

Archie:

I will be back to see Pine Valley with a client in June, so check back with me then, although I certainly will not actually be playing the new tee on #4.

Your last post brought up an interesting point though and it is a fairly common thing in modern architecture -- the idea that the tees should be moved back far enough that all holes require a driver tee shot.

When I built High Pointe, there were three holes which I planned so that a thinking player would opt not to hit driver -- twice because you would be better off laying up a bit to a flat lie and a better look at the green, and a third which was just too narrow between trees for driver to be the best play.  In their infinite wisdom, over the past twenty years, management built back tees on the first two holes so you'd have to hit a driver to get to position A, and took down the tree on the last hole so you could bomb away.

I am all for LETTING good players hit driver off the tee, but I don't think that should be the best play on every single hole ... in fact, I think it SHOULDN'T be the best play at least occasionally, to keep players on their toes.  But Pine Valley is just one of many courses where they are making changes along the lines I described above ... rewarding the long hitters and making the hole damn near unplayable for the average guy, instead of having a hole or two which reduces the reward for distance.  The long hitters seem to be making all the rules.

[JESII]

Tom,

The trouble is, #4 had become a 2 iron - 8 iron hole.

PV still makes Driver less than the best choice for me on #1, #2, #6, #8, #11 and #17.

I think the long holes should be long.

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:

Fair enough, I'm glad to hear they haven't put back tees in on all those other holes.  And I agree with you that a long hole might as well be really long.

But could Tom Paul even compete off the new tee?  Or have they relegated him to the senior division with one extra tee?

[JESII]

Tommy is straight enough that he'll hit it right down that road and hopefully bounce it off the pro shop door and chip it on from there...

[TEPaul]

Sean Leary:

I grabbed the new card just the other day and even though I don't have it in front of me I recall the back tees are listed at a total of 7057 now.

[JESII]

Tom D,

Maybe I was too short...Tom Paul would not want to play the back tees after the addition of #7 (5 or 6 years ago), #13 (also 5 or 6 years ago) or #16...but he is not incapable of completing those holes, just a half shot penalty for not being able to clear the sand.

[TEPaul]

"But could Tom Paul even compete off the new tee?  Or have they relegated him to the senior division with one extra tee?"


TomD:

Interesting you'd ask that about me and that new #4 tee. I think I told this whole story on here some time ago but maybe not.

I've known about that new back tee for maybe 4-5 years now. Back then it was flagged and I went back there a bunch of times with my old friend Ott.

At that point I'd played in the Crump Cup for maybe a dozen or 15 years and every year. But I thought they were just about to put it in back then and when I looked at it and walked it off I actually wrote a letter to the president of the club and told him that there was no tournament I ever played in that I loved more than the Crump Cup but that I just knew even if there was a constant 30 mph wind at my back even the best drive I was capable of probably wouldn't even reach that fairway, and so I thought it would be best if they'd just give my place to someone would could hit those kinds of drives.

The thing back towards the end of my years in the Crump is even though I could play in the Senior division if I qualified and chose to we all had to play from the tips because seniors had the option of playing in the other divisions including the Crump Cup flight if they did well enough to qualify for it. That's why we all had to play from the tips.

I got a really nice and actually pretty funny letter back from the president telling me to his knowledge I might be the only guy who ever voluntarily resigned from the Crump Cup like that but that he wished more would do that so they wouldn't have to throw so many out when they hang on too long.

Frankly, I never played in a Crump that used the new back tees from the last 4-5 years that include now #4 but before that #7, #9, #13, #14, #15, #16 and #18. I think even when I was playing good I might have had some trouble reaching #7, across Hollman's Hollow on #13 (265), on #16 I'd definitely have to go way left and on #18 even being downhill in some situations (wind into) I may even have had some trouble reaching #18 fairway (248).

I'm pretty sure I probably never carried a tee ball in neutral conditions over 250 very often and it sure was something I never tried to count on with any kind of risk around.

I have no idea why I was always so short off the tee for a tournament playing scratch player because it wasn't really true with my irons and I'm not exactly small. There's just something about the driver and it's kind of driven me crazy for years because scores of people have told over the years if I swung at a tee shot with my driver practice swing I could hit the ball 20-30 yards farther. I've tried everything I can think of to actually hit a driver with my practice swing but I just can't do it when the ball is in front of me. I think it has something to do with what I call getting "ball bound." I actually think it has something to do with the eyes. 

Also for years so many people have told me I have about the best timing for a swing that they've ever seen but most of them probably don't really understand that much about the physics and dynamics of a golf swing and they are probably just mistaking what's basically a slow motion looking swing for good timing.

Anyway, with that new tee on #4 and maybe some of the others you also have to understand that even a short driver like I was who played so much tournament golf as I did really does have pride in their game no matter what and they just don't like to get really embarrassed with what a tee like that one (new #4 PV) would do to me even with my best shot.

So, it was time to go and voluntarily. I don't regret it. Matter of fact with PV, I was down there the other day and I was telling my old friend Lenny that I don't think I ever want to play the course again because the last time I played it was at the end of the Senior Member Guest with my old buddy John Ott. He died suddenly a year and a half ago; I really do miss him, particularly whenever I think of PV and I want that last round with him there to be my last for that great golf course I've loved and admired so much for so long.

[Sean Leary]

What about a new teebox on 6, should the house go away? Like it or no.

[JESII]

Nope.

Great medium/short par 4...especially when the ground is firm...don't love the cedar trees through the fairway though.

[Lawrence Largent]

Does the course ever play firm and fast?  When I played there last July the course was way to soft especially after playing Huntingdon Valley the day before.  I asked the caddie and he said the course hasn't play firm and fast since they changed the fairway's twenty years ago.

Lawrence

[Adam Clayman]

Did you guys hear the one about the guy that hit the ball so far it was the courses fault?

[DMoriarty]

Interesting thread.  I know little to nothing about Pine Valley, but have a general observation and then a question for those who know the course, and those who might not.

It blows my mind that at one of the world's best courses a short hitting scratch tournament player would be unable to consistently clear the trouble off of some of the tees to make the fairway.  Yet those tees are necessary to keep the long hitting scratch player from playing the hole 2 iron - 8 iron.   Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't we talking about a huge yardage difference between long and short hitters of generally equal scoring ability as indicated by handicap? 

A few mentioned or alluded to lengthening holes to return to the design intent, and I understand this reasoning.   But was it really the design intent at this or any other truly great course to eliminate the possibility that a short hitting scratch player can even compete with a long hitting scratch player, or even play the course from the same tee?   Or is something fundamentally wrong with the game when long and short scratch players cannot even compete on our best courses?

I've read that Pine Valley is very difficult and was not built for high handicappers and realize it is not for everyone, but we are talking scratch players.  Plus, it couldn't have always been this way, because according to TEPaul the Senior Division used to play from the same tees as everyone else.     

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to criticize Pine Valley here at all.  They are doing what many other courses are doing, and given the state of things, I don't have any idea what they should or shouldn't do, nor would it be my place to tell them.   But isn't it time golf took a step back and really considered the state of things, namely the consequences that technology has had on the game and is having on our great courses?

I don't know about the rest of you, but I for one was really hoping that TEPaul would win the "Crump Cup" this year, and am very disappointed he wont get to compete.  (Secretly, I was hoping he'd invite me to caddy.)

[JESII]

Did you guys hear the one about the guy that hit the ball so far it was the courses fault?

Adam,

How do you feel about re-creating one of the truly spectacular inland approach shots in golf?

[Tom_Doak]

David:

Your question is all about EQUIPMENT and not architecture.  Modern equipment has been optimized to the point that strong players get enormously more length out of their clubs and balls than they used to, while the shorter hitter can't.

Everyone always rationalizes that the "shorter hitters" I am talking about are 15-handicaps who shouldn't be on the back tees in the first place, but it's not always so ... some of the best golfers I've ever known are seniors and women who couldn't drive it more than 250 yards, but could compete with the best players in the world even giving away a lot of length.  But now the equipment difference has become so great that design has changed, and players who can't hit it 250 yards have been dismissed.

[JESII]

David,

A couple misunderstandings in your post:

1) This new tee is 60 or 70 yards behind the old back tee and the old back tee only resulted in 2 iron - 8 iron for me on firm and or downwind days - there is a feature in the driving area (a severe downslope) that once reached will add 50 yards to your shot. the club could have lengthened the hole any amount they wanted, but I believe backed into the precise amount by figuring out what it would take to keep most drives on the top deck. It sounds like they used 300 yards as their bogey.

2) I quoted the number of 275 to reach the flat portion of the fairway. This is quoted from a good source (I haven't been there to see the tee). There is 40 or 50 yards of fairway short of this flat spot so the carry must be 230 or so to the fairway. Still a considerable swipe, but not 275.

3) You must not be aware of the fact that Tom Paul one-putts every single green he plays. This is an unbelievable advantage that must be countered and forcing him to hike through, and hit out of, hundreds of yards of sandy scrubby waste seems like just the right counter measure to me.

I would say you have misunderstood the ability (or inability) of long and short hitters to compete fairly at Pine Valley. Whomever plays the best is going to win.

[JESII]

David:

Your question is all about EQUIPMENT and not architecture.  Modern equipment has been optimized to the point that strong players get enormously more length out of their clubs and balls than they used to, while the shorter hitter can't.

Everyone always rationalizes that the "shorter hitters" I am talking about are 15-handicaps who shouldn't be on the back tees in the first place, but it's not always so ... some of the best golfers I've ever known are seniors and women who couldn't drive it more than 250 yards, but could compete with the best players in the world even giving away a lot of length.  But now the equipment difference has become so great that design has changed, and players who can't hit it 250 yards have been dismissed.

Tom,

My disagreements with that post are dictate a longer and fuller conversation than this board allows...

How has design (including re-design / restoration / renovation) dismissed the real good player who doesn't hit it 250?

[archie_struthers]

 


One of the greatest things about Pine Valley is that distance is not the key to scoring , putting and course management are the secrets to success.  It definitely shows in the Crump Cup where excellent local players with real  knowledge of the course have competed and won against national amateur players. It doesn't happen very often anywhere else. The changes were and are necessary to a great extent, as stated the equipment advances mandated same.


I can't wait to see the new tee on #4 and hopefully launch a couple pellets slightly left of Cy Eastlack's old house. As elucidated by  JES and others , #4 was a long lay-up hole , and the club to hit off the tee could be rather puzzling. The pot bunkers at the bottom of the hill were definitely in play, the gorse that surrounds these being even worse. A caddy that fell asleep could get himself in some trouble for leaving just the driver.

 It will be interesting to see where the balls land off the new tee, but also brings those new traps on top of the hill more into play. As much as the new tee should be great for tournament golf, I'm still wondering about those relatively young  (10 years ?)  traps on top of the hill. Will they exert too much influence on strategy from the new tee? Previously you could blow it over them with no worries. HMMNNNNNN???

The idea of the longer tee is spot on for  #4 and might end up being the best one yet.  It's definitely going to leave lots of guys with a 190-210 yard shot to the green , and some long tee shots might well result in a hanging liie with a 5 or 6 iron . It's a lot different than a 140-5- yard shot off the flat spot. 

Many of the old guard would talk of what they perceived Crump's intent to be, as only a few had ever met him and they aren't around anymore. It appeared thru word of mouth that  Crump envisioned the second shot on four from the plateau. This and twelve , believe it or not , were considered bump and run second shots , though of much different distance.  The fairway design bears this out , being  slightly convex in front of the green , and will throw shots both left and right. There is  a  smallish flat area  just short of the green where the spine runs out . This is the sweet spot for any front pin! The green runs away from you, so hitting rescue, 4 or 5 irons to this green will require some skill and not just brute strength. Remember you can switch back to the old back tee at anytime, adding diversity. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()