News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Patrick_Mucci

A century later, Pine Valley,
« on: January 11, 2012, 08:08:53 PM »
unlike TEPaul and Mike Cirba, remains relevant in the modern golf world  ;D

The question is, with very few substantive amendments, how has the course been able to retain, not just its relevance, but it's position in the rankings as the # 1 golf course ?

Some holes have been lengthened to offset the advances in distance brought about by hi-tech, but, the bodies and greens on the holes remain today almost as they were 80, 90 and 100 years ago.  And, many of the holes haven't been lengthened.

So how has the course managed to retain its inherent challenge ?

Was it that overpowering in the early part of the 20th century ?

The fairways remain generous and even from the "member" tees, the challenge remains stern for the average and better golfer.

The course doesn't have a "wind" factor as Shinnecock, NGLA, Seminole, Bandon, Pebble and others do, so what's its secret ?

And, why haven't more holes at Pine Valley been copied over the last century ?

Ed Brzezowski

Re: A century later, Pine Valley,
« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2012, 08:28:01 PM »
Could it be that wonderful mix of great planning, wonderful execution of design, a spectacular piece of land and great growing conditions cannot be duplicated??  World Woods tried it, as have a few others, and while nice courses they pale in comparison to PV.

Maybe it would be irreverant to really try?  Great question, cannot wait to see others thoughts on this topic.
We have a pool and a pond, the pond would be good for you.

Sean Leary

Re: A century later, Pine Valley,
« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2012, 08:33:16 PM »
I have always wondered why the eighth was never copied. Perhaps the green(s) are too small, but that hole is frickin brilliant.

Variety is, of course, the key at PV. No two holes remotely alike and all excellent to very good. As you mentioned they added length when they could\should and it has helped the course (although I could do without the back tee at 14).

Oh, and having those greens doesn't hurt either.

Anthony Gray

Re: A century later, Pine Valley,
« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2012, 08:36:48 PM »
   I heard its all hype.

JESII

Re: A century later, Pine Valley,
« Reply #4 on: January 11, 2012, 09:03:19 PM »
"relevant"? What the hell does relevant mean here?

Brett_Morrissy

Re: A century later, Pine Valley,
« Reply #5 on: January 12, 2012, 12:55:07 AM »
Pat,
I am not sure as I am yet to see it in the flesh, but my take on your question (s) is why haven't they had to make a lot of changes to combat the modern distance issue.

My reading of a little of the history is that Mr Crump designed a course and constructed it for the elite golfer, only those with great skill and have their game finely tuned on the day could possibly hope to conquer his majestic layout, add to this all the penal hazard elements that appear intrinsic to his course design, and strong and challenging green complexes all set in a beautiful landscape, combine to prevent the course being "out muscled" by modern day golfers. If the golfer is not deadly accurate, he is then immediately out of position and now requires and even greater execution of the next shot  - with these kind of challenges laid out, the modern advantages of added length, decreased side spin and better grooved wedges have had LESS OF AN IMPACT than at many other courses, where wind is not generally a major factor.

But Pat, I assume you have answer - so look forward to your thoughts.

@theflatsticker

Patrick_Mucci

Re: A century later, Pine Valley,
« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2012, 01:10:12 AM »
Brett,

That's the gist of this thread.

With so few changes, especially to the bodies of the holes, greens and green surrounds, how has the course held up so well over the last century ?
Especially with such wide fairways ?

As I reflected on the question it dawned on me that the properties of the individual holes have acted to defend against increased distance.
Either due to the dogleg nature of the hole ( 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17) and/or physical impediments such as cross or intervening bunkers as on 2, 4, 7, perhaps 17 and 18.

Perhaps a critical element is the inherent difficulty associated with the two par fives.
On most courses the par 5's are viewed as definite birdie holes and increased distance has made them more so.
But, not at Pine Valley.

David_Elvins

Re: A century later, Pine Valley,
« Reply #7 on: January 12, 2012, 01:16:26 AM »
The question is, with very few substantive amendments, how has the course been able to retain, not just its relevance, but it's position in the rankings as the # 1 golf course ?

Limited tournament play has to be a factor. 



Ask not what GolfClubAtlas can do for you; ask what you can do for GolfClubAtlas.

Mark_F

Re: A century later, Pine Valley,
« Reply #8 on: January 12, 2012, 02:45:39 AM »
With so few changes, especially to the bodies of the holes, greens and green surrounds, how has the course held up so well over the last century ?
Especially with such wide fairways ? 

Patrick,

I haven't seen it either, but from pictures and descriptions, there are quite a few greens where chasing after pins in the extremities can lead to big numbers when missed?

Brett_Morrissy

Re: A century later, Pine Valley,
« Reply #9 on: January 12, 2012, 04:28:59 AM »
Pat,

I also thought the wide fairways would contribute to a "taming" of the golf course, but clearly if you miss the fairway, then PV bites hard, and then there is the forced carries which continue to demand much of the golfer.

I have also thought, in reading about the early days of the club, how incredibly difficult the course must have been, for everyone except the best players, and was surprised by a comment of TE Paul's that many of the members have do not have this as their home club, but of course further thought deemed this necessary due to its tough challenge.

So, this shows why it has proven very difficult for anyone else to reproduce such challenge, because no one would have the balls to make a golf course that tough?!?
@theflatsticker

Mark Chaplin

Re: A century later, Pine Valley,
« Reply #10 on: January 12, 2012, 04:36:55 AM »
First and foremost Pine Valley is a members course and like most courses it retains it's relevance to the average member. Certainly the members I know have a good idea of where the back tees are but would never dream of using them!
Cave Nil Vino

Patrick_Mucci

Re: A century later, Pine Valley,
« Reply #11 on: January 14, 2012, 11:39:18 AM »
First and foremost Pine Valley is a members course and like most courses it retains it's relevance to the average member. Certainly the members I know have a good idea of where the back tees are but would never dream of using them!

Mark,

The retention of its relevance, in the face of technological advances over the last century has nothing to do with a few, recently created back tees.


JESII

Re: A century later, Pine Valley,
« Reply #12 on: January 14, 2012, 12:06:42 PM »
Pat,

Are you using relevance in place of challenge?

I think your post about the mid-bodies of so many holes calling for controlled distance off the tee is accurate...although I think it is worth discussing the architectural merits of forcing certain players to lay back off the tee on so many holes.

I think your post about the few new tees not enhancing its relevance is dead wrong. I think the additions to #'s 4, 7, 9, 13, 16 and 18 over the last 10 or so years has absolutely regained the full challenge the course previously presented to top players off the tips. They have each been extremely well executed and each completely changed the dynamic of those holes for guys playing at the Crump Cup level. From the old tees, none of those holes were driver holes in typical conditions and now they really are. The course had lost it's balance because I could legitimately play a round there and only hit one or two drivers unless I anted to take on a real risk. Now I have to hit 6 to 8 minimum.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: A century later, Pine Valley,
« Reply #13 on: January 14, 2012, 03:30:21 PM »
In addition to the par 5's retaining their challenge, primarily due to the features within the body of the holes, I think the par 3's have enjoyed the same advantage.

While # 3 and # 14 have seen the addition of length, # 14 moreso than # 3, # 5  and # 10 remain virtually intact from their original form.

The par 3's at Pine Valley are the epitome of target golf.
They may present, as a group, the ultimate pass/fail test.

From the back tee, # 14 may be one of the hardest par 3's in all of golf, visually and playability wise.

But, back to # 3.

# 3 was from the begining and remains today, a pass/fail test.
The green is an island in a sea of sand with more trouble lurking further away.
But, hitting the green is no guarantee for making par.
The green, depending upon hole location, may make the hole more of a par 4, despite the mid-iron distance from the tee.

If one misses the green, I won't say that par is impossible, but, it can be very, very difficult, with double bogey a likely score.

And, hitting the green can leave one with 3 or 4 putts.

So, from the begining to current date, this hole has retained its challenge without resorting to gimmicks.
The distance, angle of attack, configuration and putting surface have withstood the test of time.

Thus, the hole remains as relevant today as it did 100 years ago.

# 5

The first time I walked unto the tee at # 5 I turned to my playing companions, none of whom had every played the course, I looked at the green across the chasm and said, "wow, this is one hell of a par 4".  I thought it was a short par 4.  My caddy said, " sir, this is a par 3".

I think first timers, without benefit of a scorecard or prior knowledge, would probably utter those same words.

This hole is visually intimidating and it's long, with a good carry to get to the fronting fairway, a minimum requirement.
Disaster lurks, left, right, long and very short.
If you play the hole to its yardage, unless you hit an exceptional shot, you're doomed, for misses left and right usually result in doubles or worse.  Go long, and double or worse becomes par.  Short is better than good.  Too short is disaster.

So, despite advances in tech and distance, this hole has also retained its challenge, its relevancy as a demanding par 3.

As you walk onto the 10th tee and view the green, close by and slightly below, you're disarmed by this short hole, but, again it's another island in a sea of sand with more trouble looming nearby.  The green views as a benign green since the plateau is almost invisible.  Hole location and the visual it presents can determine the golfer's comfort zone and fear factor.

It would be hard to believe that a first time golfer hadn't heard of the famous DA and all of the legends, (notice the avoidance of the term "myth") associated with it.

While # 10 may be the shortest of the resident par 3's, it can still produce high scores.

The pass/fail test may be relatively easy, but once one fails to hit the putting surface, the difficulty of the 4 par 3's equalizes and # 10 becomes as difficult as # 3, # 5 and # 14.

Once on the putting surface, the general back to front slope, along with the added back tier make putting, sideways or downhill, more difficult.

# 14

As one walks off the extremely challenging 13th green, toward the 14th tee, the visual is startling, for down, well below where you're standing, your eyes take in the combination of four elements.  The pond, beach bunker and green, and the surrounding trees.
It too is an intimidating sight.
As you walk onto the tee, you continue to study what lies below.
In the time that you first sighted the green, until the time you've teed your ball up and taken your stance..... the hole hasn't gotten any easier..... and, you know it.

And, if there's a breeze, especially in your face or crossing, you know, that the hole has just gotten more difficult.

This is the ultimate in pass/fail.

There is no fronting fairway to aid you, as on # 5.
This isn't a short shot that can be managed.
This green isn't an island surrounded by sand, your eyes and mind tell you that it's an island surrounded by water.
The golfer's brain tends to ignore the sand/bunker surrounding the green and the woods flanking the green, it's the heroic carry over water that rivets your attention.  It's the uncertainty of your trying to factor the elevation disparity into your club selection, coupled with the knowledge of the consequences of a failed attempt that erode the golfer's confidence.

You can't bail out, you can't play safe, it's do or die.
It's frightening.
Should you be foolish enough to play this hole from the back tee, it just may be one of, or the most intimidating looking par 3's in golf.  And if there's a breeze in your face or crossing, it just got exponentially more difficult, to play and in your mind.

One of the funnier stories from PV happened on the 14th tee when the legendary caddy, Rocky, was arguing with his golfer over which club to hit.  Despite the elevation, the hole tends to play the yardage.  Rocky was insisting that the golfer take the longer club.
The golfer, ego driven, was insisting that he could get there with the shorter club, which he selected.
The golfer teed the ball up and was taking his stance when Rocky interupted and said, "wait a second".  Then he went over to the teed up ball, picked it up off the tee, brought it up to his face, looked at it and said, "you better take a deep breath", and then he put it back on the tee.

For those who have played # 17 at Sand Hills from the back, upper tee, imagine that shot to a true island green, only longer.

Individually and collectively the four par 3's at Pine Valley haven't lost their ability to intimidate and challenge golfers despite the passing of 100 years.

Next, the par 4's.

David_Tepper

Re: A century later, Pine Valley,
« Reply #14 on: January 14, 2012, 06:02:35 PM »
"Limited tournament play has to be a factor."

David Elvins raises an interesting point. Would Pine Valley have been able to resist the pressure/tempatation to change/alter this course if it was hosting the U.S Open every 5-10 years? Would the sight of the top golfers in the world coming in and shooting lower and lower scores over the years compelled the powers that be to make changes?

Patrick_Mucci

Re: A century later, Pine Valley,
« Reply #15 on: January 14, 2012, 06:42:37 PM »
David T,

PV hosts a Major Amateur event every year, plus they've hosted the GAP Open, so it's not like they've isolated themselves from competitive golf at a very high level.

As to a U.S Open, the course would have held up admirably until the USGA allowed the genie out of the bottle.

The problem PV would have is the same problem Olympic and SHCC had with increased green speed.

I can hear the screams in Northern NJ from the players 4 putting #'s 2, 3, 5, 13 or 15, or from taking triples or higher on 5, 8, 13, 14 or 15.

Medal play at PV with high stimp speeds remains a difficult challenge.

The  process of Lengthening would probably have been accelerated and tees extended beyond their present yardage, where possible.

Scott Stearns

Re: A century later, Pine Valley,
« Reply #16 on: January 14, 2012, 06:48:16 PM »
thats "they would have put the tees downtown" for those of you playing the home game...

David_Tepper

Re: A century later, Pine Valley,
« Reply #17 on: January 14, 2012, 07:28:57 PM »
"PV hosts a Major Amateur event every year, plus they've hosted the GAP Open, so it's not like they've isolated themselves from competitive golf at a very high level."

Pat M. -

I trust you would agree there is a HUGE difference between hosting the Crump Cup and hosting at US Open. The Crump Cup is match play, does not have even the very best amateur golfers in its field and is virtually a private event. No one, aside from the people there, knows (or even cares) what scores the players are shooting.

The US Open has the very best players in the world and is broadcast around the world. The medal scores are there for everyone in the world of golf to see. You can bet the USGA's obsession with "protecting par" would have forced some changes on the course had Pine Valley hosted the U Open once every decade for the past 50 years.    

My guess is the Pine Valley membership, after seeing a few tour pro's shoot 63 or 64, would want to see their course "toughened up" as well. ;)     

DT
    
« Last Edit: January 14, 2012, 07:37:50 PM by David_Tepper »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: A century later, Pine Valley,
« Reply #18 on: January 14, 2012, 07:52:16 PM »
"PV hosts a Major Amateur event every year, plus they've hosted the GAP Open, so it's not like they've isolated themselves from competitive golf at a very high level."

Pat M. -

I trust you would agree there is a HUGE difference between hosting the Crump Cup and hosting at US Open. The Crump Cup is match play, does not have even the very best amateur golfers in its field and is virtually a private event. No one, aside from the people there, knows (or even cares) what scores the players are shooting.

The Crump Cup is NOT conducted solely at Match play.
Medal play is an integral part of the format.

Perhaps you're confusing the Walker Cup with the Crump Cup.

Why did you eliminate the hosting of the GAP Open ?

While there's only one U.S. Open, the GAP Open is conducted at medal play.


The US Open has the very best players in the world and is broadcast around the world. The medal scores are there for everyone in the world of golf to see. You can bet the USGA's obsession with "protecting par" would have forced some changes on the course had Pine Valley hosted the U Open once every decade for the past 50 years.    

You may not be aware of it, but there are courses that reject suggestions from the USGA.
My guess is that PV wouldn't be quick to cede control of their golf course to any outside organization


My guess is the Pine Valley membership, after seeing a few tour pro's shoot 63 or 64, would want to see their course "toughened up" as well. ;)   

63's and 64's have been scored at PV.

As to forced architectural changes, lengthening is about the only one I could see PV agreeing to.

What holes would you and David Elvins change, architecturally, and HOW ?

    

Brett_Morrissy

Re: A century later, Pine Valley,
« Reply #19 on: January 14, 2012, 08:54:11 PM »
Pat,
A brief aside if possible?

Do you know how PV manage the sandy waste areas exactly?

Do they use chemicals, i.e. glyphosate (roundup) or similar, OR restrict the useof chemicals - do they use manual labour to physically weed out all the unwanted vegetation OR after so many years of all those sandy areas, seed banks are gone, and it just needs raking?
Do they go to great lengths to maintain the broader areas of sand and hazard?
@theflatsticker

Brad Kane

Re: A century later, Pine Valley,
« Reply #20 on: January 14, 2012, 09:11:46 PM »
The question is, with very few substantive amendments, how has the course been able to retain, not just its relevance, but it's position in the rankings as the # 1 golf course ?

Limited tournament play has to be a factor. 





Fact.

David_Tepper

Re: A century later, Pine Valley,
« Reply #21 on: January 14, 2012, 09:26:06 PM »
Pat M. -

I attended the Walker Cup at Royal Aberdeen this September. I know members of the Olympic Club who have competed in the Crump Cup the past few years. I know there are qualifying rounds of medal play as the first phase of the event. I can assure you I know the difference between the Crump & Walker Cups!

None of us (not even you ;)) really knows what would have happened to Pine Valley had the course hosted golf tournaments of global significance on a regular basis over the past 50 or 60 years. Judging by what has transpired at Augusta National and venues of other major golf tournaments, it is hard to imagine that changes would not have been made.

I think David Elvins thesis has merit.

P.S. I think you would agree that someone shooting 63 or 64 (or 61 or 62!) under tournament conditions, with the whole golfing world watching my have a slightly larger impact on how the course is perceived than a member or guest of a member doing the same in private.

DT        
« Last Edit: January 14, 2012, 09:59:05 PM by David_Tepper »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: A century later, Pine Valley,
« Reply #22 on: January 14, 2012, 10:45:09 PM »
David,

ANGC hosts a tournament every year, you cited PV  hosting a tournament like the Open every decade (13 years), not every year
There's a significant difference.

Inherently, PV is a vastly different golf course than ANGC.

The difference in the par 5's is enormous.
The difference in scoring on those holes is likewise enormous.

I feel the same about the par 3's

Until fairly recently ANGC wasn't unusually long, today, it's long.
PV might be more landlocked than ANGC, preventing additional, substantive length on holes like #'s 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15 and 17.
Holes like #'s 1, 7, 12 and 18 might be close to being capped out.
Hence, PV might not have had the flexibility afforded by available land/length.

But, the real key to retaining the configuration of the golf course would seem to reside with the different perspectives of the reigning dictators.
It would seem as though Cliff Roberts had a different perspective when it came to change.
He welcomed it.  In fact he solicited change.  I doubt JAB would entertain outside suggestions to alter the course.

ANGC has changed every hole over time, to different degrees, but ANGC certainly can't be held up to be the norm.
Look instead at courses that hosted Opens every 13 years.
Where were THE SUBSTANTIVE, PERMANENT changes ?

LENGTH

Look at WFW, Baltusrol Lower, Shinnecock, Merion, Pebble, Olympic, Oakmont and others, except Medinah, and the body of the holes have remained relatively static.  The single, overriding change has been length.

As to the 63 and 64 at PV, I think those might be competitive scores, not casual rounds

David_Tepper

Re: A century later, Pine Valley,
« Reply #23 on: January 14, 2012, 11:47:39 PM »
Pat M. -

Has Pine Valley ever hosted a tournament of consequence, a tournament where the vast majority of the 50 or 100 best golfers in the world (or even the U.S.) participated?

My understanding is Olympic underwent at RT Jones-led renovation prior to hosting its first US Open in the 1950's. The 7th & 8th holes have been changed substantially prior to this year's U.S. Open.

RT Jones did the same at Oakland Hills. Pebble has had a number of fairway bunkers added and/or changed on several holes over the past couple of decades. The mowing patterns on several of the holes were changed prior to the last US Open there to alter the position of several of the fairways.

If work was not done on a number of courses hosting the U.S. Open, how did Rees Jones get the nickname "the U.S. Open doctor?" ;)

DT

 

 

Jim Nugent

Re: A century later, Pine Valley,
« Reply #24 on: January 15, 2012, 12:05:24 AM »
Quote
The question is, with very few substantive amendments, how has the course been able to retain, not just its relevance, but it's position in the rankings as the # 1 golf course ?

TOC has retained its position near the top, I think without substantive changes the past 90 or so years.  Same is true of Shinnie and CPC and many if not most highly-rated classic UK/Irish courses.  They added length but not a whole lot else.  

So another question is, how unique is Pine Valley in staying relevant and highly rated with few substantive amendments?  

  

Tags: