How would you improve Pine Valley, the # 1 course ?

[Mike Nuzzo]

Replace #2 green back to how it was in 2010

[Mark Chaplin]

Pat I've played 18 enough to know how it plays in still conditions.

I haven't played Hidden Creek as I rarely play modern courses, I did play Essex County and TCC and they both have a bit of age, things get a little modern when they start with a one and a nine in the year of build.

[Tony Ristola]

Kyle,
I agree with the bunkers and banks leading down to some of the bunkers. I recall looking at a photo of #10 and thinking it looked more like the TPC Pine Valley with its smoothed out bank left of the green.

[ChipOat]

Pat,

I'm afraid all of my suggestions would involved "softening" the pitch of many of the greens to account for the often ridiculous putting situations with which one is now faced on many of the greatest golden age courses.

Since it was already determined on another thread that I have thrown in the towel on that issue and you have not, I think I have nothing really constructive to add to this thread.

However, I will think hard about it, since PV has always been the most difficult course for me to identify any changes that I believe would be an "improvement".

Perhaps that is why I consider it to be the best golf course in the world.

[archie_struthers]

 


Pat , with all due respect I don't know much about the 18th pimple at PVGC . It might be great I just don't know.

But , as to the 8th at Hidden Creek, it's really the worst hole on an excellent golf course. The green is not good ...if the PV pimple was anything like that, glad it's gone!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Archie,

That's what makes horse races, I love the hole with it's center fairway lion's mouth bunker, blind green with the large mound in the middle.

There's a premium on driving accuracy and a deft short game.

The 18th green at PV is to benign.

The reintroduction of an internal feature, be it the pimple or a spine would restore it's unique character and restore the challenge on the approach, recovery and putting.

[Al Jamieson]

Interesting post by Kyle "Alistair" Franz, who has worked his magic all over the world as a shaper. Both he and George Waters shaped our greens for Kyle Phillips at California Golf Club, with able assistance from Josh Smith.  Both men are in high demand by the likes of Doak, Hanse, Urbina, Coore& Crenshaw. Having watched them closely for a year, I will never look at a golf course quite the same way again.
As one who has only played three rounds at PV, I am not qualified to render any opinion, but I'd sure like to play there again!

[JSlonis]

Replace #2 green back to how it was in 2010

Have you played both the 2010 and the new 2011 greens?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jamie,

# 2 green remains a GREAT green, but the previous green was even better.

As green speeds increase, and they will, more and more great greens will be softened/disfigured.

Where or when will the quest for increased speed end ?

As to the 18th green, Crump got it right conceptually.

Had he lived, he would have figured it out construction wise.

Instead, a large green with unique character was transformed into a bland semi-punchbowl green, lacking internal character AND more importantly, lacking the challenge Crump intended.

[JESII]

Here's the rub from my perspective...the game is a hell of a lot better when the greens are 11 or 12 feet than when they're 8 or 9 feet. Firm is a correlating factor as well. I'd rather play a hole where there is a risk of being in places on the green that leave me dead than being able to hit it anywhere on the green.

[Michael George]

Patrick:

Do you know why they don't have a tree maintenance/removal program?  I rarely hear anything but gushing praise for the place.  However, the one re-occurring criticism is the tree growth.  You would think that it would be a no brainer for the club.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael,

I think it was a matter of benign neglect.
Trees grow imperceptibly.  When you live there or visit regulary, you don't notice any change, sort of like parents who live with their children and visiting relatives who only see them once every few years.  The parents don't notice the day to day changes and for the most part daily observations don't provide a sufficient disparity to notice any difference.  Well, it's the same thing with members of a club, they don't notice the subtle, miniscule daily changes, but, a visitor who is returning after a lengthy time away from the course notices the changes versus his last time there.

Since clubs like Pine Valley don't give much weight to outside opinions, relying on their leadership and membership, who's frame of reference is that of daily exposure, the tree problem went unnoticed.

I've been pointing out the problem for well over a decade.

The other thing you have to remember is this.

Without constructive criticism, progress is impossible.
However, part of the problem is the ego of the individual/s and entity.
Many don't take kindly to criticism, even if it's constructive (just go back to your teen years and your folks trying to help you improve your habits and your life)
So, to a degree, there's an internal, inate resistance to criticism, even if it's constructive.

So, suggestions, well intended and valid, are dismissed or deflected, and the problem continues to get worse.

As to green speeds of 8-9 versus 10-11, for decades and decades and decades Pine Valley was a great, if not the greatest course with green speeds of 8-9.

Twenty years from now will the claim be that Pine Valley is better at 14-15 than 10-11 after more and more greens are flattened, depriving them of their intended character and challenge.

Remember, greens aren't for the sole purpose of challenging putting.
They're intended to challenge the approach and recovery, and when you flatten them to accomodate more speed, you diminish and destroy the intended challenge on the approach and recovery.

Today, you can hit it anywhere on that green and there's no significant challenge other than distance which you can get on any green.
The reintroduction of the mound/spine restores Crump's original concept, his original intent to challenge the approach and recovery as well as putting.  But remember, the challenge in putting is dictated by the approach and/or recovery, ONLY when you have the mound/spine in that green.

And, with the emphasis on a great finishing hole these days, restoring the mound/spine in the 18th green would be the icing on the cake.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Willie_Dow]

I'm sure with you on this one, Pat.

Stick with your decision, even if it gets little response.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Jamie

I've never played either
I've spent time at the crump cup enjoying the course and players
Please tell me your opinion

OSSSS!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Willie, 

Conceptually, Crump understood the need for an internal feature to distinguish/differentiate a good shot from a marginal shot on that rather large, punchbowl like green, which happens to be the 18th and final green.

The internal feature, be it a mound or spine is the structure that serves to function as the differentiator.

Crump conceptualized, designed and built that mound in the 18th green.

And more importantly, that mound remained in that green from the day it was built, for years, for the remainder of Crump's life.

If it was so objectionable to him, as other self proclaimed experts claim, why didn't he remove it ?

It wasn't like Crump was too busy doing other things.  Things like business ventures or raising a family.
His SOLE pursuit was that golf course to the exclusion of everything else.
He spent almost every waking hour ON SITE.
And from the time he conceptualized, designed and built the mound in the 18th green, it remained an integral feature of the 18th green until and after the day he died.

As to the writings of one other,  that the configuration of the internal feature might have been temporary, four to five or more years or a lifetime doesn't sound temporary to me.   In addition, what may have been temporary was the configuration of the feature.  The concept was PERMANENT, and that's what others, including self-proclaimed experts fail to grasp.  Crump ALWAYS intended to have an internal feature to function as the differentiator on that green.  What others, including self proclaimed experts, haven't considered, is that any reference to the mound being temporary, may have been directed to it's dimensions, and not the concept of differentiation, which was permanent.

Anyone with a brain, and even some without a brain, should be able to recognize that Crump understood the vital need for a differentiator as an internal feature within that green. 

If one examines the second hole, Crump's favorite hole, and in particular, the green, you can see how he used contour to serve as his differentiator.  His intent was to use contour, in the form of a convex feature, as the differentiator on # 18.
And, he succeeded by incorporating a mound as the internal feature.

He repeated that process/function with the configuration of the 3rd green.

And again on other greens, such as # 12.

As it stands today, the large, punchbowl like 18th green desperately needs the "differentiator" returned as an internal feature.

[Michael George]

Patrick:

2 great posts on PV. 

Just my humble opinion, but you would think that PV, more than any course in the country, would be loyal to the vision of its founder.  I can think of no golf course in the world where its founder dedicated more of himself to its design and construction and accomplished more.   

I have often thought how amazing and humble George Crump must have been.  Can you imagine a golf course today where the greatest architects of the time all contributed to the construction of the course.  While Colt receives the lion share of the outside credit, I think it is safe to say that Tillinghast, Wilson, Flynn and Travis, among others contributed.

I hope to have the pleasure of playing PV someday and on that day, I am hopeful that it is exactly as George Crump envisioned.
 

[JESII]

Michael, I believe Crump said his intention for the mound was for it to be temporary. Pat thinks a spine should replace it. Don't let either fact ruin your round if the opportunity presents itself.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael George,

Jim Sullivan is both incorrect and uninformed.

What's irrefutable is that Crump conceptualized, designed and built that mound into the 18th green.

What's irrefutable is that the mound remained within the 18th green for Crump's lifetime.

The period from 1912 to 1918 can't be viewed as "temporary.

Jim is also incorrect and uninformed in stating that "I" think a spine/ridge should replace it.
The fact is, that Crump gave indications that perhaps a spine/ridge might be the prefered feature.

What Jim doesn't understand is that Crump always intended that their be an internal feature within the green to differentiate good approaches/recoveries from mediocre to poor ones.

Jim is relying on the misunderstandings and/or mistatements of others in off site emails.

Crump, from 1912 until his death in 1918 was solely focused on Pine Valley.
He conceptualized, designed and built the mound into the 18th green.  That's irrefutable.
If he wanted to change it, he had six (6) years to do so before his death, yet, no attempt was made.

Others can refer to a single third party reference circa 1917.
Some to reports crafted after Crump's death, but, those are third party references, not Crump's own words or deeds.

Crump's deed, stood unaltered, from the time of its creation, circa 1912, for the duration of Crump's lifetime and beyond.

So the notion that Crump intended the internal feature to be temporary is pure unadulterated nonsense, absent a single shred of contemporaneous evidence.

That mound, survived intact, from the day Crump created it, for the entire remaining six (6) years of his life.
Not once did he alter it in those six (6) years, yet he had every opportunity to do so.

That's hardly what I'd call "temporary".

You'll also remember that some of these "experts" that Jim is citing on this issue claimed that Crump killed himself on PV's property and that members and staff at Pine Valley conspired to conceal the death by cleaning up the crime scene and in violation of New Jersey law, moved the body to his residence some 13 miles away.

[Willie_Dow]

Again Pat, you're on track once again.

The changes to #3 were a stupid mistake.  If you pulled your tee shot, trying to get to the left corner of the back, and came up short - wow what a bad bunker you had to deal with.

When?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael George,

In the interest of getting the facts right and correcting Jim Sullivan's erroneous statements, I thought I'd provide you with some information relavant to discussions about the 18th green.

While Smith and Carr were close to Crump, they weren't Crump.

Pine Valley asked Smith and Carr to recollect Crump's thoughts relative to the golf course, these "rememberances" essentially third party hearsay, found their way into subsequent Pine Valley reports such as the 1921 Advisory Committee report and PV's archives.

Here's what Smith and Carr had to say about the 18th green and the mound.
But, first, let's remember, Crump conceptualized, designed and built that mound and it remained within the 18th green from roughly 1912 through 1918 and beyond.  So, if Crump intended to alter it, he had ample time to do so, six (6) years, yet he never touched it.
That doesn't sound like a temporary feature to me, or perhaps, Crump was satisfied with its FUNCTION.  That it served the purpose he intended, namely to differentiate good shots from bad to mediocre ones.  Makes sense to me.  But, back to Smith & Carr.

Simon Carr stated:

George saw players drive down close to the cross bunker and he was determined to do something to make the last shot of the round something harder than a mashie or mashie-niblick.
Just what he never determined.

Note:  Maybe that's why he deliberately left the mound intact.

He always intended to modify the hump (so-called "pimple") on the green into a heavy roll reaching to the right hand rear corner to give the player who sliced onto the green a more difficult putt than the player who plays straight to the center

Note:  Remember, misinformed and misguided Jim Sullivan claimed it was MY idea that a spine/ridge should replace the mound.  Here we have Carr saying it was Crump's idea.  You have to wonder where Jim gets his information.

Smith stated the following:

He will take out the hump ("pimple") on the green when he gets ready.

Note:  Evidently, in/for six (6) years he wasn't ready.  That seems permanent to me.

He put it in to test if anything could be designed to penalize a sliced shot, the green being so large a bad slice might stay on it.
He will put in a roll instead of a hump. The green needs character on account of its size.

Note:  Jim Sullivan claimed that it was MY idea to have a spine/ridge inserted into the green, now Smith tells us it was Crump's idea.  Where does Jim come up with these deeply flawed statements ?  Perhaps sleep deprevation is taking a far more serious toll on his mind, or what little is left of it.

So, it's crystal clear, Crump conceptualized, designed, built and retained the mound in # 18 green from the start, and throughout his entire lifetime.

When it comes to intent, that more than anything else, including third party hearsay, even from close friends, is the overriding proof of his intentions.

Hope that helps



 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat , with all due respect I don't know much about the 18th pimple at PVGC . It might be great I just don't know.

But , as to the 8th at Hidden Creek, it's really the worst hole on an excellent golf course. The green is not good ...if the PV pimple was anything like that, glad it's gone!

Archie,

What do you find objectionable about the pimple on # 8 green ?

How would that short hole play if it was removed ?

Would it be a better hole ?  A worse hole ?

The architectural purpose of that pimple, or rather its function, from a playability perspective is to differentiate good shots/planning from bad to mediocre shots/planning.

That little feature, a big pimple, has an enormous impact on play, what great bang for your buck, architecturally.

We're going to have to spend some field time together on that green this spring.

[JESII]

Pat,

I know facts have little place in your arguments and that math is not your strong suit but I thought we'd walk through a couple things. The first blow of an axe in constructing Pine Valley was in February 1913 and Crump died in January 1918. How many years is that? Is it 6? Sort of like your claim that the tee is 50 feet above the fairway...

Next, based on those quotes in your previous post it's clear, whether or not you agree, that the mound was a temporary feature. Temporary, as in a test, an experiment, that was not going to be the permanent fixture. I think you can stop calling for a restoration of the mound.

As to a ridge of some sort, and your recent claim that I said it was your idea...please provide proof of me suggesting that because I haven't.



You're trying to make the point that Crump left the pimple there from the inception of the hole but your posts counter that very claim. Clearly, his observations of the playing of the hole over some period of time is what dictated his constructing it...that wouldn't have been until sometime well after him first clearing the site, don't you think?

Did you know there were 4 holes not yet built when Crump died? You're implying that he hadn't removed the pimple before dying so that alone suggests he wanted it permanent...do you think he wanted a 14 hole course?

You're entitled to your opinion that the green is neither interesting or challenging enough...just don't pretend it's a fact.

[DMoriarty]

Michael, I believe Crump said his intention for the mound was for it to be temporary.

I've read this before but I have never understood it.  Why build such a mound if it was to be temporary?   Can you tell us a bit more about this?   Thanks. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I know facts have little place in your arguments and that math is not your strong suit but I thought we'd walk through a couple things

The first blow of an axe in constructing Pine Valley was in February 1913 and Crump died in January 1918.
 How many years is that?
Is it 6?

YES, it's SIX (6)

1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918.

Now try again, how many years is that ?  It's SIX.

Please, for the sake of the kids education, have your wife do their math homework with them.[/size][/color]

Sort of like your claim that the tee is 50 feet above the fairway...

The tee sits at 137 FASL, the right side of the fairway DZ sits at 92 FASL, that's 45 feet and close enough for my guestimate..

Perhaps you should attend the kids math classes, it couldn't hurt.

Next, based on those quotes in your previous post it's clear, whether or not you agree, that the mound was a temporary feature.

NO, it wasn't.  It remained perfectly intact for Crump's entire lifetime on site.  That's an indesputable fact.
The words of Smith and Carr are hearsay, not fact.
The physical existance of the mound, for the entire time of Crump's time on site is proof positive that it wasn't temporary.

Temporary, as in a test, an experiment, that was not going to be the permanent fixture.

How long was the alleged test/experiment going to be for ?  A year ? two years ? four years ? six years ?  A decade ?  A century.

What you also have to understand is that the mound was objectionable to many.
Would it be the first time that obtaining support for its removal might come in the form of a "requested report" ?

That was no temporary mound.
With the time at his disposal, Crump had six years to remove it, in concept, design and construction, yet, HE CHOSE NOT TO.

I think you can stop calling for a restoration of the mound.

That's your opinion, one I don't share.

As to a ridge of some sort, and your recent claim that I said it was your idea...please provide proof of me suggesting that because I haven't.

Please reread your reply # 41.
In the interest of time, I'll quote it for you

Michael, I believe Crump said his intention for the mound was for it to be temporary.
Pat thinks a spine should replace it.
Don't let either fact ruin your round if the opportunity presents itself.
[/b][/size]


You're trying to make the point that Crump left the pimple there from the inception of the hole but your posts counter that very claim.
Jim, in addition to your math skills, your reading comprehension skills need work.

Clearly, his observations of the playing of the hole over some period of time is what dictated his constructing it...that wouldn't have been until sometime well after him first clearing the site, don't you think?

ONLY if you think Crump was a moron and didn't understand the issue/problem/lack of challenge until he played the hole a thousand times.

Did you know there were 4 holes not yet built when Crump died? You're implying that he hadn't removed the pimple before dying so that alone suggests he wanted it permanent...do you think he wanted a 14 hole course?

Jim, forget about just auditing math and reading comprehension classes, throw in logic as well.
That's the most convoluted argument that even your kids wouldn't make.
Please, reread and reread again, what you type before you hit the post key.

You're entitled to your opinion that the green is neither interesting or challenging enough...just don't pretend it's a fact.

But Jim, Smith and Carr said that Crump thought so, so how isn't it fact if one or two of your irrefutable sources claim Crump said it wasn't challenging enough ?  Word to the effect that it was bland due to its size, absent remarkable internal features.

Instead of trying to argue with me just to argue with me, try a new tactic.  THINK ....................then post

[DMoriarty]

Patrick and Jim,  I probably should bother, but here goes . . .   From February 1913 to January 1918 is almost five years.  (Four years and eleven months.)

Jim, If we are to take Carr's recollection as fact, it seems that at the very least Crump wanted a "heavy roll," did he not?