[TEPaul]

You really are funny the way you grasp at straws to try to keep some point alive. Are you now asserting that PVGC has a "turf" problem due to your "darkened hallway" theory??

That's your interpretation, I never said that.
If you would cite where I said that I'd appreciate it.

Pat:

Here’s what you said:

“TEPaul,
Oakmont and Winged Foot embarked upon aggressive tree removal programs because of turf and play issues.
Firstly, that's the right thing to do, to undo what man has allowed, encouraged and actively participated in by adding invasive trees to the golf course.
Just because the club's name is Pine VALLEY doesn't mean that they don't have a substantial tree problem, or that they shouldn't embark on the same aggressive removal program that Oakmont and Winged Foot did.”

Pat:

The discussion here is about PVGC and trees. You seem to be suggesting they remove a great number of them. Why is that exactly? I’ve said get them out of the areas Crump didn’t intend them to be, not remove so many of them that the holes would not be isolated from view of each other through tree divisions which Crump intended to do. So why are you bringing up Oakmont and Winged Foot and their tree removal here? Are you not trying to make some kind of analogy to what you think PVGC should do with their trees? We all know Oakmont has removed most all the trees on the interior of the golf course. Are you suggesting the same for PV by mentioning what Oakmont did? Otherwise, why did you mention Oakmont’s tree removal in this discussion of PV’s trees.

And what about turf problems at Oakmont due to trees? Was that an issue? My understanding is the club simply decided to restore the course to the way it looked at the time William  Fownes died when it had almost no trees. I don’t believe it had anything to do with turf problems due to shade as you seem to suggest PV may have due to your description of the course with ‘darkened hallways as hole corridors’.

[Paul_Turner]

Patrick

The club has done a little bit of work on the 15th on the left hand side bank approaching the green.  Also I believe there has been some tree removal on the 10th, but I'm not sure.

But I'm with you.  

From the old pics and your experience of the course, where would you like to see trees removed other than the 2nd and 9th?

Paul

[ChipOat]

I'm late to this thread but I'm struck by one thing in particular (besides being fascinated by the old pictures).

And that is:  while I'm not sure I would call any of Pine Valley's present holes "darkened hallways", I sure do think that #2 (for instance) SEEMS a lot tighter today due to the trees THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE LEFT AND RIGHT BUNKER LINES than in the picture of that hole from the 1920's.

It may not actually PLAY any tighter, but it does FEEL like it.  And that's a significant part of golf course architecture.

[Tyler Kearns]

Paul,

Fantastic pictures!! I never realized that the topography at Pine Valley featured so much elevation change. That feature is really highlighted by the vintage images of #18, which in modern photos appears much less of a panoramic tee shot, due to the trees which conceal & soften the landscape.

Tyler Kearns

[TEPaul]

"That would indicate that they were not aware of the problem earlier.  If they were, what possible reason could they have for not taking action to correct the problem?"

It's pretty elementary Pat: PVGC is traditionally run pretty much completely by one man. For perhaps 25 years the club  was run by a man who really liked trees and planting them! In the last few years the club has been run by another man who apparently doesn't feel the same way about trees one of his predescessors did, and so the club is starting to remove trees from those areas Crump did not intend trees to be.

Are you beginning to get this now or shall I go even slower and explain it even more comprehensively?  

[TEPaul]

Paul;

PV has removed trees in the last few years that I know of on holes #2!, 4, 5!, 6, 7, 9, 10!, 12, 14! and 15.

Ideally, this is what I'd like to see them do tree removal wise.

Hole #1;

Remove a good deal of trees on the inside corner of the dogleg, almost exposing the green from the tee. Let the bunkering Crump worked so hard to perfect on the inside of the dogleg do the work on this hole.

Hole #2;

About ten yards deep have been cleared back on the left on this hole in the tee shot area exposing all the redone fairway bunker on both sides of the fairway (this is probably the most visible tree removal change recently). I'd continue to clear back that much all the way to the green on the left. Definitely remove enough trees behind the green to completely reestablish a real "skyline" green here. Those trees back there are of no consequence to anything!

Hole #5;

Remove trees overhanging the bunkering on the left side of the green-end.

Hole #6;

Remove up to 30 yards deep all the trees along the inside of the dogleg exposing the left portion of the green from the tee.

Hole #9;

Clear back on the second half of the hole on the right allowing for much more shot angle latitude to come at that right green even with a draw! I'd certainly not object to the clearing of all trees along the entire ridgeline behind this hole restoring the "skyline" look this green once had although I do recognize that trees in the distance off the club's property behind the green could be seen. In the early photos those trees in the distance were not as apparent as they are now.

Hole #11;

Clear back as many trees along the entire right side of this hole as it would take to expose the green from the tee. I would definitely NOT remove the trees on the left of this drive area. Those trees are EXTREMELY strategic in how you play your tee shot!

Hole #12;

Clear back 30 or so yards along the left side of this hole bringing Crump's bunkering in this area back into play and exposing the green from at least the old tees and perhaps even the newer back tee.

Hole #13:

This one could be really interesting. Few may know that Crump intended to put a back tee on this hole that basically had something of a ramp off #12 to it (possibly somewhere near the new tee). He also had cleared back massively on the entire left side of this hole (that can be seen in the old aerials). What Crump wanted to do is have a golfer from the back tee see the flag on the green!!! Think about that for a moment. That would be completely awesome and would really fool with a player's head and his aim on an already complex fairway. I'd DEFINITELY NOT remove any trees at the end of the fairway as the hook back to the left. This is a well known problem for long hitters and others who choose to go way right to avoid Holman's Hollow and the danger of kicking left off the end of the fairway past Holman's Hollow on the left and those trees that hook left at the end of the fair very much serve to strengthen the intensity of the entire left side of this drive zone and all the interesting things in this area.

Hole #14;

Continue to clear as many trees as possible back around this green. They've already done a lot on this green-end on the right. I'd lose the original tees on #15 and place them to the right and behind #14 green. The trees covering the 15th tee from the tee shot on #14 I think is the only real glitch at PV. No #1 course really needs to string netting in trees to protect golfers. The tees on #15 have always been far too close to #14 green. They should be repositioned well behind #14 greeon. And it appears Crump may have felt that same.

Hole #15;

I may be in a real minority (and certainly with Mayor Ott) here but I'd leave the big overhanging tree on the right in the second shot landing area. I think it very much creates thought and strategy and serves to very much strengthen the importance of playing to the left side on the second shot---a most interesting and experience oriented shot. I'd clear massively back along the hillside up by and to the left of the green exposing many interesting bunkers up there and allowing a player to risk hitting a big high fade or cut into that green---a truly high risk and dangerous play to a green designed and set up like that one!

Hole #17;

Remove all the trees from tee to the green along the right side (probably many hundreds of them) and restore the old alternate fairway on the right! Some trees would need to remain on the right of the green as there's a new back tee there now.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You really are funny the way you grasp at straws to try to keep some point alive. Are you now asserting that PVGC has a "turf" problem due to your "darkened hallway" theory??

That's your interpretation, I never said that.
If you would cite where I said that I'd appreciate it.

Pat:

Here’s what you said:

“TEPaul,
Oakmont and Winged Foot embarked upon aggressive tree removal programs because of turf and play issues.

That's correct.  You'll notice that I DIDN'T say that Pine Valley had a turf problem[/color]

Firstly, that's the right thing to do, to undo what man has allowed, encouraged and actively participated in by adding invasive trees to the golf course.
Just because the club's name is Pine VALLEY doesn't mean that they don't have a substantial tree problem, or that they shouldn't embark on the same aggressive removal program that Oakmont and Winged Foot did.”

Amazing, you got it right again. but where did I mention in the above quote that Pine Valley had a turf problem ?  I DIDN'T.  Again, you make wild leaps, coming to your conclusions, conclusions that you'd like to attribute to me.[/color]

Pat:

The discussion here is about PVGC and trees. You seem to be suggesting they remove a great number of them. Why is that exactly? I’ve said get them out of the areas Crump didn’t intend them to be, not remove so many of them that the holes would not be isolated from view of each other through tree divisions which Crump intended to do. So why are you bringing up Oakmont and Winged Foot and their tree removal here?

Because talk is cheap.  Oakmont and Winged Foot aggressively pursued the correction of the tree problems that pertained to their respective golf courses.  Pine Valley has been loathe to do so.  Two examples are of courses that recognized their problems and took comprehensive action.
Something Pine Valley seems reluctant to do, judging by their actions over the last ten years or so.  Their tree problem didn't just rear its ugly head last week.
Action speaks louder then words.[/color]

Are you not trying to make some kind of analogy to what you think PVGC should do with their trees? We all know Oakmont has removed most all the trees on the interior of the golf course. Are you suggesting the same for PV by mentioning what Oakmont did?

NO.  Where do you come up with these wild extremes ?

Each golf course is unique, with a seperate set of circumstances and problems.  Irrespective of the specific nature of the problem, you either correct it, or you don't.
Winged Foot and Oakmont aggressively corrected their problem while Pine Valley has dragged its feet with theirs.

If they recognized their problem, why hasn't there been a more earnest attempt to correct it ?
Perhaps they didn't and still don't recognize it.
If they did, with their budget, wouldn't it be corrected by now ?[/color]

Otherwise, why did you mention Oakmont’s tree removal in this discussion of PV’s trees.

Because, one is an example of action, the other is an example of inaction[/color]

And what about turf problems at Oakmont due to trees? Was that an issue? My understanding is the club simply decided to restore the course to the way it looked at the time William  Fownes died when it had almost no trees. I don’t believe it had anything to do with turf problems due to shade as you seem to suggest PV may have due to your description of the course with ‘darkened hallways as hole corridors’.

You're confusing and blending issues again.
I'll let you answer your own question, do trees that are invasive to play create turf problems ?

Is their proximity to fairways, greens and rough a concern ?

Stop being so defensive when it comes to Pine Valley.
You've agreed that the course, vis a vis, the trees, has suffered from benign neglect over the years.
I'm just as anxious as you to see it return to a more glorified state, but evidently, the club doesn't share those views.
If they did, the tree problem wouldn't have existed over the last 1-20-40 years.
[/color]

[TEPaul]

"That's correct.  You'll notice that I DIDN'T say that Pine Valley had a turf problem."

Then what was the point of mentioning Oakmont and Winged Foot's tree removal in a discusson of the subject at PVGC? Particularly after you mentioned 'darkened hallways' of playing corridors. What was your point with mentioning Oakmont's tree removal project then? Do you think PVGC should do something similar to Oakmont with their trees? If not, I wonder why you mentioned Oakmont.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

If you'll reread my post that appears above your last one, you'll see where I previously answered all of those questions in detail.

I realize that you just woke up, are a little bleary eyed and groggy, so go have a cup of coffee and a muffin, and then make another attempt to reread my post.

Your post, # 105 provides valueable information, and an admission to part of the problem.

If a tree grows, and noone notices it, will you hear it when it falls ?  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Your posts on PVGC's trees are funny. Maybe you just like to hear yourself talk but if you really want the answer to your question about the tree encroachment at PVGC in the past decades and what they are doing now to remove trees and why just read post #105.

You speak in generalities using analogies to Oakmont and Winged Foot, two courses very dissimilar to PVGC in the context of trees. There's not much specifically useful or even understandable in what you say, in my opinion. You talk about a real tree problem there. Define what you think it is then and what you'd specifically recommend yourself. I just did that in post #106.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You're completely missing the point.

I was very specific in stating that each course is unique and has their own set of tree problems.

What you can't grasp is that Oakmont and Winged Foot went out and COMPREHENSIVELY fixed their problem in short order.

Pine Valley has not fixed their tree problem in short order, choosing instead to take THEIR time.  

Please, tell me the coffee worked and that you now get it.

Please, don't make me call you at this hour.

[TEPaul]

"Each golf course is unique, with a seperate set of circumstances and problems.  Irrespective of the specific nature of the problem, you either correct it, or you don't.
Winged Foot and Oakmont aggressively corrected their problem while Pine Valley has dragged its feet with theirs."

Is this where you answered what you think the tree problem is at PVGC in detail? If so, that's even funnier.

What if Gordon Brewer happened to ask you what you'd SPECIFICALLY do about tree removal at PVGC if you were him?

Would you tell him;

"Gordon, each golf course is unique, with a seperate set of circumstances and problems.  Irrespective of the specific nature of the problem, you either correct it, or you don't.
Winged Foot and Oakmont aggressively corrected their problem while Pine Valley has dragged its feet with theirs."

He'd very likely tell you;

"Uhhh, Pat, nice generalities, but I already know that---so what would you suggest we do here?"

The fact is, you just like to hear yourself rant and I don't believe you really know. If you do then give me some hole by hole specifics as I just did.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I realize they're taking their time. But they are removing trees down there that encroached in bunkering, mounds and shot angles. It's too bad they aren't on your timetable, but you aren't the one running that golf club. But they are doing it--they are going in the right direction with trees now--not the wrong direction of decades ago.

Maybe you're not aware what they are doing and have done and just maybe you don't even know particularly well what they should do. If you think they should return the course to the look tree-wise you saw on an old aerial hanging in the clubhouse, you'd be very wrong about that, in my opinion. I've taken a good deal of time to explain why but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that or discuss that. Again, probably because you really don't understand that course very well!

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I've given a hole by hole tree removal suggestion here. I doubt you or anyone else on here will or can comment on that hole by hole suggestion because they probably just have nothing much to compare it to. In other words, they, and you, just don't really know, so their only response, like yours, is to just suggest the club massively clear trees at PVGC. That's not the best way to approach the subject or to go about it.

Again, the best starting point, in my opinion, is to try to understand what George Crump wanted to do there tree-wise and how he went about trying to accomplish that. That starting point involves coming to terms with the fact that he did want to separate those holes from view from each other for the golfer. So far you apparently haven't got to that point or acknowledged it. You need to understand that and what he did there that way (very wide routing) first before you start using the analogy of a course like Oakmont and what Fownes wanted to do there and did there which was massively different in a tree context from PVGC. That's precisely why many of these courses were so uniquely different!

[ForkaB]

Tom and Pat

Sorry to interrupt the lovefest, but I have two questions:

1.  How many of the current trees are "Pines?"  (I see a lot of deciduous stuff in the photos....)

2.  Is there a "Valley" there?  Looks like east coast flatland/scrubland and a few minor hillocks to me.......

Thanking you in advance.....

[TEPaul]

Rich:

The topography of Pine Valley is uniquely different from all that surrounds that course and area of Pine Hill/Clementon in Southern New Jersey. Geologists believe it was probably some anomaly of the Ice Age. The elevation differntial at PVGC is app. 120 feet, far, far more than what surrounds that small area in Southern New Jersey. It's probably one of the primary reasons Crump picked that site and passed on a number of others in the general area.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

1. There're 24,459 pines of various varieties at PVGC and 17,831 and 1/2 deciduous trees or varying varieties.

2. PVGC has a couple of primary ridgelines that create a couple of little valleys.

Do you want to know the receipe for their snapper soup and what brand of toilet paper they buy too?

[ForkaB]

Rich:

1. There're 24,459 pine varities at PVGC and 17,831 and 1/2 varieties of deciduous trees.

2. PVGC has a couple of primary ridgelines that create a couple of little valleys.

Do you want to know the receipe for their snapper soup and what toilet paper they buy too?

So why don't they call it "Pines and Dedicidouses Valleys"?  Now, that would roll off the tongue, just in time to drool in your snapper soup (thank god for the rolls of toilet paper!).

[TEPaul]

You really don't get much do you Rich? How could you miss the obvious? It's called Pine Valley because the pines varieties still outnumber the deciduous varieties. This must never change and if it ever does Crump left instructions that the club must be renamed Deciduous Valley G.C. until that time the pines outnumber the other trees again!

And if Crump could see the things that Pat Mucci is saying about his course on this thread, there's no quesition in my mind he'd suggest if what Pat seems to be sayng ever happened, the course should be renamed "Idiots Valley G.C."

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bump,

Add # 2 to the equation.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()