Framing - Blame it on Pine Valley!

[Mark Fine]

Right or wrong, "framing" on this site has a very negative conotation and many architects are infatuated by it with Fazio being the master!  Just as Augusta is blamed for the average club's pursuit of perfect conditions the need for inflated maintenance budgets, I blame Pine Valley for the rise in the concept of framing as every hole there is perfectly "framed" and one to its own!  If you're an architect and the "best" course in the world is designed as such, why not try to emulate it?  
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

I think there has been a trend to isolate every hole from every other hole.

Whether Pine Valley inspired the trend is open to debate.  
I certainly think they cultivated it.

Looking at most old photos of Winged Foot, Baltusrol, Preakness Hills and other nearby courses from 70 years ago, trees and isolation didn't exist.

Perhaps the trend is reversing itself, let's hope so, as many courses have had their play adversely altered by ill conceived plantings.

[Mark Fine]

Pat,
I hear your but are you suggesting courses like Pine Valley would be better if the place was devoid of trees and the holes were not "framed"?  On a similar note, Colt as you know, designed numerous courses outside London by clearing out tree after tree to build golf holes.  Most of those courses have that similar PV look in that the holes stand alone and are perfectly framed!
Mark

[Chris Hervochon]

I think you guys are wrong in blaming Pine Valley.  If you look at old photos when the course was just an infant, the place was almost devoid of trees.  Remember, those little black pines DO grow in 90 years, that's why the holes are framed now.

[Mark Fine]

Chris,
Did the architect(s) assume they wouldn't grow??  Furthermore, the course is what is and it's considered the best even with the trees!  I'll ask you the same question as I asked Pat, would the course be better without them??  
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

The next time you're at Pine Valley, in the clubhouse, in the big room, go to the back door exiting to the parking lot, and look at the old aerial picture on the wall next to the door, and then tell me what you think about Pine Valley and trees, or Pine Valley without trees.

P.S.  I tried to email you, but the message was returned as undeliverable.  Did you change your email address ?

[Chris Hervochon]

Mark Fine-
If you know anthing about the Pine Barrens of NJ, the native vegetation, at first, is relatively low to the ground and grows rather quickly.  Maybe Colt overlooked that, but the only difference about Pine Valley without trees is the amount of wind that would be present.  Colt made the corridors so wide that the trees really don't come into play.  But, as I stated, vegetation in the Pine Barrens just pops up, and I don't feel there would be any way in 1914 to know what the native vegetation would be like in 2001.

[cbradmiller]

If I may jump in, I agree with Pat (at least I think I do) great today as is, but out of this world from all the old photos, I think the ariel mentioned is in Shackelford's book, "The Golden Age... " The same can be said of CPC also, not trees as much as growth in the dunes. Still the top 2 that I've played.

[Ran Morrissett]

Mark,

How are you defining framing? Sounds like you define it as having trees down the fairway and behind the green? Isn't it boarder than that?

Indeed, save for the trees, I think of PV as being remarkable for its lack of framing: the clean 1st green, the skyline 2nd, etc.

Cheers,

[TEPaul]

The name of this topic is; "Framing-Blame it on Pine Valley!

Mark Fine:

You've been off base before but now you really are! You may see and play 75 golf courses a year but personally I don't think you know the first thing about the finer points of golf course architecture and you certainly don't know much about the ramifications of it's history and evolution to make a post like this one!

Talk about framing with some of what Fazio says and advertizes about the benefits of of the subject but don't bring Pine Valley into it! I say this fully admiting that there is such a thing as the "Pine Valley Syndrome" (similar to the ANGC syndrome). What other courses don't realize is Pine Valley is a totally different style and design than most other courses. The pine trees of Pine Valley are not NOT part of the golf course!

Did you ever think about what George Crump might have wanted for Pine Valley in 1918 or 2001? Have you bothered to analyze what he wanted to do about separating the holes in his routing?  Have you ever read any of his sentiments about how he felt about isolating his holes at Pine valley?

Furthermore, don't tell me what Harry Colt did or didn't want Pine Valley. Harry Colt didn't have crap to say about what Pine Valley was or wasn't going to be except what Crump might have agreed with him on--and that wasn't that much except #5, maybe some strategic bunker work and possibly some conceptual ideas on #10.

I don't know who ChrisH is but he seems to have an excellent understanding of Pine Valley!

Mark Fine:

Pine Valley is a great course but maybe not a perfect one. There may be some things even it can do to improve but in the scope of golf architecture blaming "framing" on Pine Valley is ludicrous!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark, et. al.,

Has the 15th hole, as you get closer to the green been adversely affected by tree and underbush growth, to the point where bunkers were effectively lost ?

How about the pot and coffin bunkers left and right of # 2 fairway ?  Over time have they been lost, or their effectiveness diminished ?

How about to the right of # 13 green ?

Trees regenerate, trees seek sunlight, roughs and fairways have sunlight, hence the natural movement of a framing forest is into playable areas.

TEPaul,

Be a little more polite to Mark when you disagree with him.
He's entitled to pose a question, and draw a conclusion.
And, I'm sure he loves Pine Valley almost as much as you do.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You're right, no need to be rude. I probably was impolite and I'm sorry about that Mark--I apologize!

There will always be disagreement about Pine Valley's roll in the so-called "hole isolation mentality". And I agree as the #1 course in the world there are plenty of people who point to Pine Valley and its hole isolation as a reason why they too should create or maintain hole isolation with trees at their particular course. This is in fact the "Pine Valley syndrome". It definitely even happened at my course in our restoration plan meetings.

However, it's undeniably true that Pine Valley's trees have gotten much larger in the last 89 years as ChrisH astutely mentioned.

The important distinction to keep in mind though is that Pine Valley is a different style of golf course (with its pine trees) than many of the others that try to follow their hole isolation design! And this should always be pointed out both to correct a major misconception and also incidentally to fully understand what Pine Valley is and may have always intended to be--and by Crump himself. It's important to do this to be fair to Pine Valley.

A distinction should also be made between the two courses that have apparently created a "syndrome" in the world of golf architecture--Augusta National and Pine Valley. And that distinction is that one has done virtually nothing to understand and follow the design intent of its original architect and the other very much has!

Pine Valley probably has become too treed in the last few decades to the extent that a few trees had started to block or cover a couple of actual designed shot angles and also to cover some of the original bunkering, probably some on-hole visibility and even an alternate fairway. It is my understanding that Pine Valley is looking into correcting that at this time and will continue to do so. Wouldn't it be nice if Augusta would start to explore that same general direction but they seem still to be going in the opposite direction?

I believe that Pine Valley reveres their original designer, George Crump, and would likely do whatever they know that he would have wanted. Unfortunately, Crump was not particularly clear on the subject of the trees at Pine Valley and what they may have looked like in 2001. All they know at Pine Valley is that Crump wanted to create a golf course whose holes were isolated from each other and he did that by creating (in most cases) the width between the holes to accomplish that purpose using trees to create the isolation.

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing Pine Valley take the trees back to something that looks almost like the aerials in GeoffShac's excellent book "The Golden Age of Golf Design" on pages 53 and 66. If they did something like that, however, the course would still look quite different from those aerials and the hole isolation would still be intact!

And why would that be? For the simple reason that ChrisH very astutely mentioned--some of those little pine trees that are evident in those early aerials are much bigger now!! And If Crump didn't want those trees to be there he obviously would have removed them. Crump spend an inordinate amount of time at Pine Valley designing the golf course and he was definitely not an unintelligent man! So we must, at the very least, assume that George Crump completely realized that trees do grow and he probably completely realized what both they and the golf course would look like when at full maturity!!

Again, I'm sorry if I was impolite to Mark but when someone makes a generalization like Pine Valley is to blame for framing I always admire the thoughts of someone like ChrisH who looks into the subject a little more and a lot more carefully.

[abiggadike]

TEPaul,

Pine Valley probably has become too treed in the last few decades to the extent that a few trees had started to block or cover a couple of actual designed shot angles and also to cover some of the original bunkering, probably some on-hole visibility and even an alternate fairway.

Very interesting.  Could you give specific examples of this?  ...especially of designed shot angles...

It is my understanding that Pine Valley is looking into correcting that at this time and will continue to do so.

I played PV for the first and only time this fall.  The gentleman I played with told me that they had pulled the trees back on the right of #2 to bring the bunkers back into play.  I don't know when they did it though...

Wouldn't it be nice if Augusta would start to explore that same general direction but they seem still to be going in the opposite direction?

Yes!

Andrew

[archie struthers]

Interesting analysis of framing, and I don't put anything past Mr. Crump in his brilliant design. His greens continue to amaze me, in both their complexity and strategic design.

Having spent more time there than most, I can tell you that superintendents over the last twenty years, beginning with Dick Bator and continuing though Rick Christian, have cut the underbrush and secondary growth back dramatically all over the golf course. The larger trees may indeed be the next to go, as the club sees fit. Maybe the right hand side of nine fairway around the bunker, to spare the loopers a tough find! However,you really have to be careful messing with Mona Lisa, as has been evidenced by the furor over Augusta, for right or wrong. I personally applaud someone who isn't afraid to take a shot, but we are talking national treasures.

TEPaul has it right in my mind, that Crump viewed separation as a key to his design, and the trees are just mother nature having some fun of her own.  

[Lou Duran]

I just have to laugh.  Mention Fazio and Pine Valley in the same paragraph and the usually rational Mr. Paul goes beserk.  All of a sudden Colt had little to do with things at PV and ChrisH is elevated to being an architectural whiz with great insights because he reminded us that trees and vegetation have a tendency to grow.

Getting back to part of Mark's original post, framing does seem to have a bad conotation on this site and I would like to know why.  Is it because most prefer completely clear panoramic views of the site or is it because Fazio appears to be its leading proponent (and we all know the scoundrel that he is)  I am not sure that framing means isolating a hole.  To me it is more akin to providing context or background to the playing field through the use of trees, mounding, sand, water, native grasses, and other natural features on the periphery.  I personally prefer holes that are "isolated" as opposed to those with parallel fairways and tees adjacent to the line of play.  Not only do I enjoy the more relaxed feeling that these holes tend to provide, they allow me to focus on the work at hand, and not on what is happening around me.  I must confess that I am afflicted by the dreaded disease of rabbit ears, and yes, I am willing to walk an extra 20 - 50 yards on every hole so as not to hear the clank of a cart's parking break being applied at the top of my backswing.

Whether or not there is such a thing as a "PV Syndrome", I have never heard a reference to it.  But being in Texas, home to sh--ty golf, there is no need for that discussion.  Though, come to think of it, even down here, our trees sometimes grow.        

[TEPaul]

Andrew:

I'd be happy to, but in so doing I want to make it very clear that anything I say here is not something I know for a fact and also that Pine Valley definitely does not and has not discussed any of these things with me. These are only my own personal opinions--I don't intend them to be indirect recommendations to Pine Valley either or anything like that and most on here already know that I'm a huge fan of the golf course the way it is now and certainly with some of the tree removing restorative efforts they are currently doing.

Designed shot angles that may have become blocked and some thoughts on visuals with some tree removal: There are far fewer of the the blocked angles though than most people think!

Hole #1: According to Warner Shelly, Crump was very concerned with the corner of the dogleg on this hole and replaced the rough grass at the corner with the excellent and excellently placed bunkering that's there now. I feel this hole and those bunkers would do well to have a number of pines  removed along the right on the drive to both expose those bunkers in their entirety from the tees and also to allow for a recovery shot from them to the green--recovering from those inside dogleg bunkers is an extremely dangerous option even when not blocked be trees coming out of them.

Hole #2: They've cut back a good deal on the left (not the right as you said--the right has always been open) of this fairway and exposed the bunkering that was previously in the trees. The bunkering on both sides of this fairway have been redone. This particular green would be ABSOLUTELY AWESOME if it was returned to a "skyline green". They would have to trim carefully behind the green and keep checking as to what the effect would be and from where on the hole. The good news is that I don't believe the trees behind #2 actually block out much else and the green site is so high that the trees behind the green would most likely not have to be removed but possible just trimmed down or something to have the smaller lower ones remain--this would not then effect the isolation between #3 and #4.

Hole #4: A tree (or trees) have been removed down just short of the green on the left.

Hole #5: No trees in any shot angles but removing a few trees on either side of the approach and green would expose the hole's awesome bunkering more--never a bad thing!

Hole #6: Removing trees on the left exposing or partially exposing the short left fairway bunkering would seem reasonable. But cutting way back on the trees all along the right to expose the entire inside corner and to expose or partially expose the green from the tee could potentially be one of the most awesome thing Pine Valley could do, in my opinion. And by doing this they would not be exposing anything obnoxious looking as there is a lot of real estate to the right of the midsection of #6, I think.

This particular hole is one of the most awesome medium length par 4s anywhere and it actually possesses unusual width which has been tunneled down a bit visually with the trees on both sides. If you think carefully about the many and varied subtle and sophisticated options on this hole and their ramifications you will quickly come to realize that PV's #6 is one of the true great ones. And there is no hole anywhere that I'm aware of that gives you the unique feeling you get standing on that tee!

I'll cut this post short and do the other holes some other time. I don't think my posts are supposed to be as long with GCA's new changes.

[TEPaul]

Lou:

I guess I do go beserk sometimes at some of the things people say about Pine Valley. It probably doesn't help to post at night after returning home having had a case of wine and about three bouts of road rage either--so I will try and cut that stuff out or at least cut it out when in that condition!

But to answer you on the subject of framing. I think the whole term or even concept is sort of a dumb. I have nothing at all against Tom Fazio (although everyone is always telling me I do) except I wish he would stop using the term "framing" all the time. To me it connotes photography more than golf arcthitecture--I swear I bet TomF owns lots of stock in every world-wide film and camera company so maybe there's more of a method to his use of the term "framing" than initially meets the lens!

I like GeoffShac's sentiments on framing a lot though. He says that framing in golf architecture is like visual hand-holding in a strategic sense. Very much helps a good player and taking away framing or visual points of defined reference is really more interesting, more demanding of things like concentration and confidence.

But not to say that "framing" is the distinct province of Tom Fazio, although he does seem to talk about the necessity of it all the time. I've also heard Bill Coore and Tom Doak refer to the use or maybe necessity of framing to a lesser degree or at least to designing holes that the eye can take in easily. Personally I think if an architect is ever lucky enough to find width that goes way beyond what the eye can visually take in easily to just go with it! I see nothing at all wrong with making the poor babies look around some!

I also like visuals that are totally unframed and definitely I like visual deception of all kinds. And if ever I run into a shot like #16 NGLA from one of the blind fairway bowls to the blind green site where all there is to aim at is some passing cloud so much the better. And if that cloud happens to be moving real fast it's like shooting a rifle--you have to factor some elevation and windage into your strategy and shot and it helps a lot to hit it real quick and move on before the cloud gets over some other target that's not so friendly!

But I have no problem with TomF except he would never use a hole like #16 NGLA even if he found one since he couldn't frame it and of course he's certain that no red-blooded American golfer would ever put up with such outrageous blindness as that hole anyway! So holes like NGLA's #16 are out of the question, they're relics, unnecessary quirk and obsoltete in the new golden age of the 1990s and on,  according to TomF.

Would you agree with TomF on a hole like NGLA's #16 as not fittin', Lou?

[TEPaul]

Lou:

On the subject of Colt and Pine Valley--what do you think he did?

[Chris Hervochon]

I would like to second Lou Duran with the notion that, yes, I am in fact a genius for being the first one to point out that trees do in fact grow.   Just Kidding!  But what I was really alluding to was that vegetation in the Pine Barrens grows a lot differently than in most areas of the country.  The pines that are indigenous to that area start off looking like little shrubs that are relatively low to the ground.  It is my assumption, that there was no way for Crump to tell what they would look like in 90 years, and if I were him I would have said to myself “self, why get rid of something when it does no harm now, and may even benefit this golf course later?”  Do my thoughts have any merit or am I way off here?

[TEPaul]

You're right about those little shrubs in the Pine Barrens and you are indeed a genius for having such unique understanding and symbiosis with those little Pine Barrens shrubs---they have feelings too and need to be understood! They need to be defended against people like BillV who instinctively wants to wipe them all out. It's infanticide and shrubicide I tell you and he should be prosecuted for it. He wants to kill all their poor parents too!

But you can just look at the periphery of the old aerials at Pine Valley to see what the natural state of affairs was there when Crump was creating.

[Ran Morrissett]

More examples of the non-framing architectural features of Pine Valley, picking up from where I left off:

3rd hole: a framed green helps to keep the ball in ball - no such luck here.

4th hole: an architect concerned with framing a tee shot would never have placed the 4th tee where Crump did.

5th hole - see 3rd hole - the golfer gets no assistance from the architect in keeping his ball in play.

6th hole- much of the fairway is obscured from the tee. An architect concerned with framing and clear visuals would have elevated the tee another 15 feet or so.

7th hole - the 2nd shot is blind. An architect concerned with framing would have leveled the far side/lip of Hell's Half Acre.

8th hole - blind tee ball could hardly be considered 'framed'

9th hole - the fairway looks non-existent from the tee, a classic class of NOT framing a hole.

Cheers,

[Lou Duran]

Tom P.-

At a unique course such as NGLA the punch bowl hole that you describe, #16, is great.  As a rule, I don't like blind shots, specially to a green.  Not having had the benefit of playing the NGLA, I am assuming that a precisely struck drive on a 400 yard hole would find a spot on the fairway from which the green can be seen.  If not, it is not a hole that I would recommend for a new course.  One or two blind drives on a course is enough for me, but I have no problem with hiding a green from a misplayed or errant tee shot.  I recall a very short par 4 at Long Cove that if you drive close to the marsh on the left you get a very good view of the green, but if you choose the safer right side of the fairway, the second shot is blind.  I thought this was a neat hole.

My knowledge of PV and Colt's contribution is based solely on the literature.  I am sure that you are infinitely more knowledgeable about how it was designed and built, as well as how it is played.  It is my impression that Colt came on early in the design phase and co-routed the layout with Mr. Crump, a routing which apparently remains largely unchanged.  I believe that he also had some input on the features of several holes.  That Mr. Crump sought a top professional's advice in designing his masterpiece makes a lot of sense.  In any regard, I thought that your earlier comment to the effect that Colt "didn't have crap to say" about what PV was to become was over the top.  Crump did not become a multi-millionaire when a dollar really meant something by hiring experts and not listening to them.  I also remember reading that PV bears some resemblance to Sunningdale, perhaps suggesting that Colt did have considerable influence.

ChrisH-

I was just having fun with Tom Paul.  Your point is well taken, though it is my understanding that tens of thousands of trees were cleared in building PV.  I suspect that with Mr. Crump being so meticulous and deliberate on his masterpiece, he probably understood the growth characteristics of the pine barrens.  

[abiggadike]

TEPaul,

I would certainly be interested in reading the continuation of that post whenever you get a chance.  Your comments regarding #1 and #5 seem quite appropriate.  I flipped through some of my pictures from that great day and saw what you mean about #2 green (and the left, rather than right, side of the fairway), and some of the others.

I experienced the feeling you described standing on the #6 tee the night before our round, which made sleeping nearly impossible!  I tried describing it to my dad without much success; you just have to see it.  Visually, it was one of the most intimidating and exhilarating tee shots that I have ever seen.  However, do you think the trees could be pulled back far enough to expose the green?  From my recollection it seems like they would have to come back a lot.

EVERY hole was great, but for some reason #4 and #8 stayed with me a bit more....

With all the talk of Fazio, how do you think he did with the short course there? (that was him and Ransome, wasn't it?)

[BillV]

This topic is very confusing to me.

Pine Valley has evolved into hole by hole isolation, but give me  examples of "Framing" by trees and/or bunkers a la Fazio at the Valley (Unless he snuck some in since May!).

I see these as very different concepts. Framing does not make a hole alone unto itself. Framing uses trees, bunkers, boulders, usually paired objects to direct and balance the view.  Yccccch.

[TEPaul]

Lou:

There has been a strong rumor going around since the beginning that Harry Colt routed Pine Valley. A lot of people believe that because they've heard it for so long. But I think you just have to look a lot closer at the available facts. I didn't exactly say that Colt didn't have crap to say about Pine Valley--I said he didn't have crap to say about Pine Valley if Crump didn't agree with it.

First of all Crump's routing of Pine Valley looks remarkably like what Pine Valley was and is today. His routing was dated and had his name on it before Colt ever arrived at Pine Valley. So logically that means only one thing to me--Crump did the routing! Holes 12-15 were a long time sticking point in a routing context and were finalized some years later by Crump with some well known help from other friends, namely Tillinghast.

Colt is definitely given credit in a routing context by Crump and everyone else involved for solving the green to tee problem between #5 and #6 by recommending that Crump make the hole much longer than he thought he could! Some others with knowledge and participation at that time also say that Colt may have been the inspiration for #10. Those two apparent facts are routing related but there're a long long way from Colt routing Pine Valley.

Colt arrived at Pine Valley in the late spring of 1913 and spent a week (maybe two) with Crump at Pine Valley. In that time he produced a booklet of very elaborate and beautiful individual hole drawings (this is not a routing). Some say, and maybe accurately, that this assistance and product may have given Crump plenty of ideas of how to design the detail (strategic detail) of the holes he'd routed. I'm going to look at those Colt hole drawing shortly but others who have seen them say they don't look that much like the holes of Pine Valley or even the features on the holes of Pine Valley.

Some have heard that Crump paid Colt $10,000 for his efforts at Pine Valley. As far as I can see, this is an undocumented fact, particularly since knowledge of it appeared approximately 40 years after Crump created the course and only from one man's (an elderly man) verbal mention. It is certainly possible that Crump may have paid Colt as much for his name as anything else. But the sense I get from Finegan's book is that this fee may have been as much fiction as fact.

All I can tell you is that many people do think that Colt routed Pine Valley, but to this day I have never met or even heard of a single person who has ever seen a Colt routing of Pine Valley and the club does have quite a bit of documantation. It's more likely that those people are confusing a routing with Colt's well known booklet of hole drawings of what Crump had already routed or was working on at that time.

It's also important for people who are interested in analyzing Pine Valley's creation to try to understand exactly how things evolved for Geo. Crump and Pine Valley--to try hard to put what happened there into true historical perspective. It is highly unusual how it happened and how Crump did it--likely  almost unique to architecture with the possible exception of courses like Myopia or even Oakmont.

I've got to go for now, and I'll post more about this later but keep in mind for now that when Pine Valley was first purchased (fall of 1912) the originators (including Crump) advertized that other founding members would be given the opportunity to design a hole each! Crump was an amateur, you see, who had never designed a golf course, although he was a quite well known player and a man with many friends. Pine Valley was even referred to pre-construction as "Crump's folly"!

And compare that with the fact that when Crump died suddenly in 1918 the world of golf and those in the business of architecture were surprisingly shocked and saddened! And I really mean that! So that shows to me how things had evolved between 1912 and 1918 and Crump's roll in it. He lived on the site for approximately four years, at one point in a tent! Noone has ever done anything like that I'm aware of.

So it's logical to assume that Crump had real talent although possibly latent, and with that kind of unique effort his learning curve and his creative effort were likely dramatic! At least when he died suddenly (just prior to completion) that is the undeniable reaction from the world or golf and its architecture!