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.


Lou Duran

Re: Framing - Blame it on Pine Valley!
« Reply #25 on: December 09, 2001, 06:58:51 AM »
Tom:

Thanks for the history lesson.  I said that you probably knew infinitely more about PV than I did.  I look forward to the "rest of the story".  Since PV is so unique, and you have great contacts, insights, and writing ability, have you consider doing a book a la Geoff's "Cypress Point"?  I would enjoy learning about Mr. Crump (maybe a short autobiography in the first part), how the course was conceived and presented, how it was built (including alternative diagrams, perhaps including Colt's documented work), and its history to date.  Perhaps such a book is already in progress.  If one already exists, can you point it to me?  Like everyone else, PV and CP are at the top of my list to play before it is too late (while I can still propel the ball forward).  Appreciate it!

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Framing - Blame it on Pine Valley!
« Reply #26 on: December 09, 2001, 09:17:59 AM »
Lou:

Thank you but I do live in the general neighborhood and have been around here a while. If somebody's going to write a book on Crump a la Geoff Shackelford's "Cypress Point" or what you suggested it should definitely be Geoff Shackelford himself. I might write a lot on here but he's a much better writer than I am and a much better researcher too!

There already are a couple of books on Pine Valley and most of its history with some mention of its architectural creation and evolution--Warner Shelly's "Pine Valley Golf Club-A Chronicle" and Jim Finegan's recent "Pine Valley Golf Club--A Unique Haven of the Game".

But I think I learned from my "Gulph Mills Design Evolution-1919-1999" booklet that when it comes to analyzing how things happen in golf architecture and how it evolves, you have to leave no stone unturned. Things happen in strange ways sometimes and for odd reasons--reasons most people don't realize and many times for reasons far simpler or more mundane than we think now.

It helps to understand routing too and sort of how it works from scratch and how it progresses, connects, disconnects and how balance and variety is always factoring, what the obstacles and sticking points can be and are, how to think about overcoming them or working with them etc, etc and what goes through the mind of a man in Crump's situation.

I think of the way Crump went about doing Pine Valley as doing a bit of an enormous jigsaw puzzle, as I said before, particularly as he went into the conception of it with quite a defined balance and variety, apparently, maybe even too much of one. In this way he didn't make it real easy on himself, in other words! That seemed to be quite a mentality back then to produce something that really tested or examined a golfer's entire game and when you try to specifically space and balance that test conceptually going in, things can get complicated!

And of course he wasn't long into it when the idea of a true championship course was conceived (in the very beginning preconstruction and prepurchase Pine Valley was conceived of as simply a winter course!). Doing his routing seemed quite quick in places, for a while, but then the next parts of adjusting and refining his routing and holes and how the features and playabilities were going to work is to me like fitting rails into long lengths of "in the ground" posts--you have to keep adjusting and fiddling and sometimes you have to take a ton of them out (and Maybe some posts too) and go back and sort of start again. At this point or just before it may have been the time Colt helped him a lot! But I think in the end he went way past Colt's ideas and used, at the least, his own ideas or refinements of them! And frankly, other than the week or two in May of 1913 I'm not sure Colt ever saw Pine Valley again, although his partner Hugh Alison certainly did.

That's the way I think he did it mostly because that's the way you had to do it back then if you were trying to do something where he was the way he was. But the unique thing about Pine Valley, that all should realize, is the amount of time he spent there from beginning to near completion of the course and also the end of his life. He was also apparently an inveterate shot tester and sometimes apparently on his own by his own demand! That too, says a lot.

But Crump was apparently a very generous and accomodating man with his friends and collaborators. I've never seen anything to indicate that he would take the ideas of others in some proprietary way and not give them credit for it--actually quite the opposite! He seemed to have given a number of people credit for things, even conceptual credit for things that he never accepted or things that he changed later. I believe he was very clever that way and that he fully understood the power of public relations and basic advertising!

So it's undeniably evident to me that whereever he got his ideas and from whomever he got them that Crump was indeed the final editor of everything that happened until his sudden death.

And also Crump (and Wilson) were the best examples of what actually is the "Philadelphia School of Architecture" (Crump, Wilson, Flynn, Thomas and Tillinghast). The "Philadephia School" was not actually a style of architecture at all--it was more a time and process of collaboration! And it was that because all these men knew each other well and they did collaborate, of course Pine Valley being the finest and best example of all time. Crump managed to bring almost everyone into the process, from Philly, New York, Boston, Chicago, LA and Europe too!

Time on site and collaboration fascinates me! It never happened before like that and it never happened again like that! I would like to see it happen again, somehow, obviously the collaboration in smaller ways because the process Crump had going would be impossible today. But the time on site is the key too and that can happen again, anywhere, anytime!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeff_McDowell

Re: Framing - Blame it on Pine Valley!
« Reply #27 on: December 11, 2001, 06:48:33 AM »
If you want to look at the origins of framing, I think you have to go back a lot further than Pine Valley. Look at photos of SOME holes in Scotland and Ireland.

I think the origins of framing start with the dunes holes in Scotland and Ireland. I'm looking at a photo of the 9th hole of Royal County Down, and coming into the green their is a lot of framing. Also, a photo of the 11th hole at Waterville has a lot of framing. If I had any computer skills at all I could post the photos.

I think the idea of running golf holes in the low areas between high areas (aka mounds) is only natural, because you do need somewhat flat ground for golf holes. The objection with modern framing is the mounds are similar, obviously manufactured, and overdone.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Framing - Blame it on Pine Valley!
« Reply #28 on: December 11, 2001, 08:00:43 AM »
You got that right and if anyone is going to do some framing it's probably safe to say that God is going to do a better job of it than Tom Fazio--that, at least, was Robert Hunter and Max Behr's basic point. Given the exact same framing some golfers will react less negatively to God's than Tom's. It really doesn't sound fair to Tom, does it, but there you go--life and golf just ain't fair, I guess!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mark Fine

Re: Framing - Blame it on Pine Valley!
« Reply #29 on: December 11, 2001, 08:59:40 AM »
I just love seeing some of the responses you get on this site.  It's so easy to get people going.  An open mind to other perspectives is important when you are evaluating courses.  Some here also forget that there is no wrong or right in evaluating golf architecture, only different perspectives and intrepretations.      

A few points:

1) Pine Valley is what it is now.  Of course it had very few mature trees when first designed (many of us have seen the pictures and read about that).  But that was then and for the last few decades at least, that has not been the case.  What is there is there and that is Pine Valley!  Everyone will have a different intrepretation of what Crump or Colt envisioned the course would look like as it evolved (which all courses do).  The impact of Pine Valley on the world of golf architecture comes from what is there now much more so than what was there 80 years ago!  If an obvious improvement could be made it would be made.  Maybe it's not as obvious as some think  :)  

2) On that note, there is a "Pine Valley" syndrome and if you don't believe that, you have your head in the sand.  What is it's main influence?  That will always be open for debate.  I tend to believe it has to do with the "one hole to its own" trend.  Maybe that is a better thing to "blame on PV" rather than "framing".  

3) Ran asks a good question, "What is the definition of framing?"  Appears from some of the comments, we all have different definitions of it.  I do feel trees definitely play some role especially on holes that are one to their own.    

4) Tom Paul says, "the pine trees of Pine Valley are NOT part of the golf course".  That's an interesting perspective (I won't say you are clueless Tom :), but then you probably don't think the Pacific Ocean is part of the golf course at Pebble Beach either!  I'm not sure too many others share such a purist and narrow opinion of golf architecture but we all have and are entitled to our own thoughts.

5) Maybe I'm off base once again as Tom points out, but I believe some part of Fazio's desire to "frame" golf holes comes from his love (maybe misunderstanding) of Pine Valley.  He is supposedly an active member there and has said on numerous occasions that PV is the best golf course in the world.  

I believe other architects and (golf course owners than don't have the time that Tom Paul does to do such thorough analysis and intrepretation of historical influences) have been influenced by PV as well.  The result is they want/try to "build their golf courses in a similar fashion".  

Just my humble misguided opinion  :)  
Mark
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Rich_Goodale

Re: Framing - Blame it on Pine Valley!
« Reply #30 on: December 11, 2001, 09:21:16 AM »
Mark

You must never have played with Tom P.  He is so straight that if PV's fairways were regulation bowling alleys, he would argue vehemently that the gutters were not part of the course.  In fact, he would probably say "What gutters?"
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Framing - Blame it on Pine Valley!
« Reply #31 on: December 11, 2001, 10:52:13 AM »
I would guess that when the trees weren't so big, a few holes were considered almost parallel, like dogleg of 6 parallel to 7 parallel to 8 and maybe 16 and 17 (tell me otherwise), see photo:
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?size=big&mapdata=cbPRZSKSHGSZ%2bueevtMvETmUsZDhdeH1eEthZs6QT759Vnjfo56d1ND%2faS2AjPdeXJXW%2bvZkOlncDFYTJ1WtRlmN3d2OrAIr
STmH4UResYCsx4YXDLY1dU2s7lRy0zZlYrjEylyZzP2OTPo7ZvA15eCpAojx9GRLCS3RiBmLWGuTv3sQ
Wg9tJWvw8snclFKVFGSFmEaNy0d1Ht4m37XbQhBN9aKlyTZRO0EJlFuj9CzZPmlT15JmtAszxV3SwWKv
KI2ZJ6Z5Gb8lP%2bqNvL7cJzqrhLq0qhtqc%2baNntH9w6M%3d





but back then, holes by themselves wasn't that uncommon.  Pebble Beach
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?mapdata=xU4YXdELrnBn5bdJkBmCn6%252fOhDfpoSSeQqZKSwCHOQ4hQJOMmVZ%252fNGlvkTYRjV5nsXy0LMuDpHPQAjVYK1SwQS%252fPhBZ1FrPJBEXy%25
2bmt4Nh5o9NAgvA6%252fXjxxMFDoPWopedAeI5EcBiFqBPqjOkzpSjENKcZcHxHwM6uOHwBicizMGmj
jluTzu2ys5m5FiM6Q8GzISkevry9HtogVLlj5LKhfs4fU2VzxwNuZ7I0aoqIDMyWW97HzaMyPNymg4L7
UPDbeayB7gqdOZIlrmOFc%252bywc%252fu7b6Yei2e51q%252fSmrZcz2ZurO8b0GQ%253d%253d&am
p;click=center&map.x=347&map.y=310
 
and Cypress Point

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?size=big&mapdata=xU4YXdELrnCXIs4TY39bHGgdzS%2blv0Q45GnYNJrZRkf0DoTHKS1UUOakY%2bvuq3FGee5GxoHyxa8cd9gwuVfmGeg%2bNK%2f1th
ak0P%2b7c471I9TaKQFB%2bYHMYZlrY6rq7lt%2bGMcrcUaqhAOvgLv3imVt4feUIYf2RB1IMCHyC9T2
uGl29%2bbhC9UlBG8q8myY%2fnu8yBlUkwfZ6F%2bN2CqrMF6BCD5lxoZLMB0rnzNDIMGlO2aqpB3n0a
UQMFbl6f1UbeCrAINjeXgb1s2v0qj%2bv075aUZA%2b9EzftEKBG27%2boGJ4pWRIymuGbSQrw%3d%3d

have holes by themselves.

But my favorite Pine Valley influence is the sandy waste areas used in some modern designs (WW-Pine Barrens, Strantz' trio of Tobacco Road, True Blue, & Caledonia, etc.).  I just wish is could be used more often.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:01 PM by -1 »

abiggadike

Re: Framing - Blame it on Pine Valley!
« Reply #32 on: December 12, 2001, 08:46:39 AM »
Scott,

I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned this... so I must say, fabulous links!  Having played PV and PB, they allowed me to analyze the routing a bit.

I wasn't aware of that feature in Mapquest... very cool.

Andrew
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Rich_Goodale

Re: Framing - Blame it on Pine Valley!
« Reply #33 on: December 12, 2001, 09:04:59 AM »
Andrew

Some of us who are chronologically-challenged did not recognize that those bits of gibberish in that previous post by Scott did in fact represent links! :o

Thanks for pointing this out.  They are indeed fabulous.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

THuckaby2

Re: Framing - Blame it on Pine Valley!
« Reply #34 on: December 12, 2001, 10:02:15 AM »
The aerial photo thing is indeed a very cool feature on mapquest.

Rich, try to guess what this one is - it's near and dear to both our hearts...

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?dtype=a&mapdata=xU4YXdELrnCEMp1YxiV1oof5myEQnlq3ELD44jc6Kgi3eThLRrad1KbS5p2AD5eItAaVaH8fDSVoAUB9cxEAQtEP4UcyL4AWC%2fHoNi8Q7
t7Q%2b1hGEoJX%2bMSvysTTki28%2byDuzzW8VnpZHfnRRDATC9aQ71baQgyiE%2bl8l9rzuR17OYLOn
%2fazC56Lv6j5bVxXxIljlw4L%2b8S9V%2f4CYmoijwno4gHKNV9LR4KSiJQCe54mWsfU7aAhBzQd7tG
XcmvtVWRUm1ykefzIH7Sgsh3MbrO%2fco16Cplf%2fXF9dar313J6Cl38W9pOGb7x9t9RFLlKCZd%2f1
ZYQHFhL%2bjGT2mZMi1Qq2GLjR7Ju089jvykOwEGRHRYf4MQIkA%3d%3d

I hope that works...

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Framing - Blame it on Pine Valley!
« Reply #35 on: December 12, 2001, 10:58:57 AM »
There are pretty nice, huh?  And in color, too!

Scroll to the right of the Cypress Point pic and you can see all of Spyglass and the land where the Forest Course will be (polo field and all).  Just north is MPCC.

I was trying to see in the Pebble pic what happened to the land where old #5 was, and it's hard to tell, since it doesn't zoom in much.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Rich_Goodale

Re: Framing - Blame it on Pine Valley!
« Reply #36 on: December 12, 2001, 11:00:51 AM »
Good old Cinnabar Hills!

Tom, why don't you find Rancho del Pueblo on that map thingy and get Ran to post it along with your My Home Course profile?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Framing - Blame it on Pine Valley!
« Reply #37 on: December 12, 2001, 11:17:25 AM »
Mark;

I surely do not wish to be impolite, as Pat Mucci said I was to you on an earlier post on this topic. So, I hope I won't be but I do want to say to you that, yes, I do think you've been way off base on a few things on Golfclubatlas. And they aren't things of subjective differences concerning golf architecture. They are things that have to do with basic facts.

It was first evident to me when you said that Huntingdon Valley would be unrecognizable to William Flynn other than the basic routing. I'm real sorry Mark but you're just wrong about that and there is overly ample evidence to prove you wrong whether you ever care to admit it or not.

It was secondly evident to me when you stated in no uncertain terms that every single green at Seminole had been vastly altered by Dick Wilson from Ross's original design. Over and over you were asked to document or prove that and you never did, you never even responded, because, in my opinion, you have no proof or documentation of that whatsoever and you're likely never to find any.

Thirdly, I agree, anybody can think whatever they want about Pine Valley and the so-called "Pine Valley syndrome". The "Pine Valley syndrome" is nothing other than the attempt of other courses to tree up their golf courses and create corridors of isolaltion between holes because Pine Valley has that and it's the #1 course in the world. You can blame that on Pine Valley despite the fact that's the way the course was designed and intended to be. The simple fact that you need to come to grips with is that many other courses that subsribe to the "Pine Valley syndrome" were NOT intended to be that way and that's up to them to figure out and deal with. Pine Valley is what it is, it is what it's always been and because other courses are trying to be what Pine Valley is although they should know full well that that isn't what they were designed to be renders Pine Valley totally blameless in my opinion.

What do you expect Pine Valley to do since you appear to be blaming them for the hole isolation attempts of other courses? Do you expect Pine Valley to cut down all their pine trees because other courses misunderstand their own courses, their own designs and also misunderstand Pine Valley's design? It appears that you do and that is the reason I think you're so misguided!

I also feel that Pine Valley has become too treed up in the last few decades and I also feel they are (and have been) taking steps to correct and counteract that. If you're not aware of that I'd be glad to point out to you how and where they've done that and may continue to.

It's also misguided, albeit easy for you to make the assumption that because Tom Fazio belongs to Pine Valley that he's been responsible for treeing up or "framing" of Pine Valley and that that may have even been where the entire concept of "framing" occured to him. I would again suggest to you that you are wrong about that or at the very least you have absolutely nothing to support remarks like that!

And lastly, you imply that I might be clueless about architectural matters by quoting me as saying, "The trees of Pine Valley are NOT part of the architecture of the course". But if you'd go back and read what I did say in that first post you'd notice it was; "The trees of Pine Valley are not NOT part of the architecture of the course." My semantics and grammar may be poor and maybe I shouldn't be using double negatives with such as yourself but that basically means just about the opposite of what you said.

I don't mind discussing things about architecture that anyone might have subjective differences about, even the trees of Pine Valley back then or now, but some of the things you've said aren't even remotely close to being categorized as subjective differences!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

THuckaby2

Re: Framing - Blame it on Pine Valley!
« Reply #38 on: December 12, 2001, 11:35:21 AM »
Rich - mucho correcto re Cinnabar!   ;D

And ok, thar she blows!  Here's RDP in all its glory, golf in an urban setting:

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?dtype=a&mapdata=xU4YXdELrnAQVUuchp%2bzBms7NfcHOfNJrhzFkEn3TbsXb4%2fVA%2bihgTbszBSQpMIJvqP5oJbrWFdXhEAEZGXZ4CHxPg9hkXf%2bRGo
%2b5eeUbCbyPtnGhYS%2bnxqiRja7GssberCz%2bqOHChZznY3TJHXOfwphbhct4Eoh9dwx8nD7QaATp
32syWkYexrT9RVcNH8A%2fpsASnf58SjeqEt12Lq8LjQ92334eGu9MI7vul0nEnVpl8j2WErbUv7ypp4
mShHswcW6WJzZcDKoZxt1%2fY2SnprTxtFxnCHZLsw6IS%2fLdl4POao1mnFdTRc3WCMk7la1Gwe97O1
6ZCGRpncVK2f0xmaBiAU49bftqUB0o6wQE%2bk%3d

Their web site is curious also... actually has some pics...

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Framing - Blame it on Pine Valley!
« Reply #39 on: December 12, 2001, 12:04:25 PM »
While this can get out of hand (not to mention it's off topic), it IS fun, and here's another pic of golf in an urban setting:

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?mapdata=jZ2g%252b%252fXW8V9NtFVdbyjY%252fP7M7HYYp%252fFIk2EV%252fEVJ2YscXGJTPdsvUuhYiQ65h9kVz1zynNl%252fuZU6rgSmXMc1YBspzEg
pRuDXv6IUrk96ckkU0UeWnkIa%252bQotk0rUkAxYhHSfev6vlKayaK0vu%252fAlNQ2aYdEjF2ECRq8
vVwgPl%252foqox0heRmldRTOXk8dbG20W8rPylL8n%252bYt%252fykV9hUbA1XWtgo%252bTIjoYbk
PRmOmZW0IfqvILEnQgzwkR%252buImP4kvD3tdrDh2TaxEHaywKqhG62lucNn8T4wZTP9WrFF4VkgVQT
aidpOfs0GD%252bB%252frh8A&click=center&map.x=282&map.y=240

By Joe, there IS room for a 2nd fairway to the right of the tree line on #8!  I couldn't remember exactly from my two go rounds there.

I checked for Lost Canyons and the pic was taken during construction (if you've played there, you can definitely see the hole routing), but there appears to be a clearing just to the left (west) of Lost Canyons' Shadow course (pictured), which I'm betting is Rustic Canyon during initial clearing, based on where Tommy N told me the course is located:

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?mapdata=jZ2g%252b%252fXW8V%252fb7IJiil2pHuQYUwQdhs8oKayZmh8g2aElt8fw5TRLYcN6WwYvsMmycuoozJUXssELFp25UtQnMhhhIXRIgpp3vMz%252
bQLOHADerQgEvUXqow%252b3kA8BWpLKHnaBQApakeo0MDuiH62jzPvF0u2ugRFfaNDKHyB0CHsthJx1
MhwC9ko73aGprIAS6eDoRIP3egArfQQVo0m8jVlaYqOt8tcyLIqJapUudUjSbTw%252bgm0Dp4bQnP37
BuYzADklic22gBKGxpam2%252fgxG8%252fQSEnUmxl22L7NZX2wvst8%253d&click=center&map.x
=304&map.y=312

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Framing - Blame it on Pine Valley!
« Reply #40 on: December 12, 2001, 12:10:25 PM »
Tom,
1) There are numerous "changes" at Huntingdon Valley, you know it and I know it.  What percent of the design would you say is orignial Flynn?  Have any bunkers been added, tees moved and/or greens been changed?  Furthermore, (and you even said so) there were "environmental" issues with the C nine that affected the design and the Flynn never would have known about them so how can you be so sure of what he would think of how it turned out?  Some of those holes I think he would question!  Guess what, we'll never know!  

My opinion stands right or wrong that some aspects of the design he would not recognize.  I didn't do the research that you did but I've seen a dozen or so courses supposedly designed by Flynn so I have some basis for my opinion.  

As Geoff Shackelford once told me, it's so hard to tell on a classic course what the original architect did and/or how he anticipated his design would evolve because 90% of their work is gone.  This was back when he was righting a section for GM on the styles of famous architects and how you go about recognizing their work.  
  
2) Ron Whitten told me about the greens at Seminole when I played golf with him at The Architects Club.  His word is good enough for me.  Please email him if you want more data to satisfy yourself.  Having played Seminole as well as numerous Dick Wilson courses, his comments made sense to me.  

3)I didn't suggest Pine Valley change anything did I?  All I said was that PV has had an impact on the "one to its own" design concept for golf holes.  Some may consider that framing to some extent.  It's no different then the Augusta effect on conditioning.  I didn't say Augusta should change anything either.  You have to stop reading into things so much.  

Also, I never said Fazio is responsible for the trees at PV.  I just said he is influenced by the golf course.  

I've known about the tree clearing plans for sometime and even talked with Crenshaw about it a Bay Hill.  We both commented on the loss of sand at PV and the need to restore it.  Geoff Shackelford and I had a similar discussion after he visited there a few years back.  

Your double negative fooled me, sorry about that!  

Once again, don't read into these posts so much.  You get defensive too quickly and it clutters your thinking  :)
Mark
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

THuckaby2

Re: Framing - Blame it on Pine Valley!
« Reply #41 on: December 12, 2001, 12:11:31 PM »
Very cool.  But I'd have to guess that's the first time this horrid area of East San Jose has been compared with Pacific Palisades!

So can anyone confirm for sure when Rustic Canyon is going to open?  I keep lobbying off-line for that as our GCA west coast outing venue...

And TEPaul, sorry for the thread-hijacking, especially here in such a darn worthwhile, interesting topic.  You know me, I just can't resist. ;)

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Framing - Blame it on Pine Valley!
« Reply #42 on: December 12, 2001, 04:37:04 PM »
Mark:

This is sort of a test--I've tried about three times to post a reply to you and it hasn't submitted. This will be short and I want to just preface that I very much disagree with the things you've said, particularly about Huntingdon Valley. None of this is in the slightest bit personal and I certainly don't want to be impolite but I am going to try to set the record straight.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Framing - Blame it on Pine Valley!
« Reply #43 on: December 13, 2001, 02:21:48 AM »
Mark:

Again, you're telling me I read too much into your posts and it clutters my thinking. Here's what I read into your statement about Huntingdon Valley as did a number of people, particularly those from Huntingdon Valley; That there have been so many changes to Huntingdon Valley that Flynn would scarcely recognize the routing!

What else am I reading that you didn't intend to say?

After you made that statement all the evolutionary changes were documented and made available to us on this site as was the restoration of all of Huntingdon Valley including the "C"  nine that had been out of play for over 60 years. Then you say that you have not done the research but you've played a number of Flynn courses and we should understand that you therefore have a good basis for making a statement like that. I'm even wondering if you even bothered to read the documented and detailed account of the evolutinary changes and the restoration of Huntingdon Valley that was made available to all of us.

Without intending to be impolite, I've got to tell you Mark that it's a little irritating to many people when someone like yourself plays a golf course one time and makes a statement  on here that you know more about the golf course than the people who have spent their lives there and have researched and restored that golf course. It's more than a little irriatating to them, I'm sure, and to me, when you continue to say the same things about that golf course after they've made available to all of us what the evolutionary changes were and what the restoration was in detail.

What is different today than Flynn's original? #14 green site, #15 tee, #6 green site ("C" nine) and the body of #7 ("C" nine) due to the later installation of the range, although #7 green site is original. #2 and #3 greens ("A" nine) have been slightly altered but may be restored. Some bunkers and tees have been added which is also documented. Also documented was Flynn's writing and advice to do that very thing--it's called planned "elasticity" and that was Flynn's distinct advice for the future of a golf couse. Have you read any of that Mark?

A man like Linc Roden (also Jim Sullivan, Dick Sayers, Scott Anderson) know more about that golf course than anyone on earth. Linc likely knows more about William Flynn than anyone--certainly far more than you do!

So again, you can continue to keep saying these things about Huntingdon Valley if you want to but noone who knows anything about the golf course is going to agree with you.  I keep replying to you because this is a good architectural website and there are a lot of people who have done and can do really good research on golf architecture on here and they're interested in things like this. There are others who read this site and I don't want them to get the wrong impression of a course like Huntingdon Valley and they very well might if they read and believe the things you say about it. That's why I'm replying to you--otherwise I wouldn't bother.

I'll post later on the statements you made about Seminole and Pine Valley. Everything you need to know about Pine Valley, however, is already in this topic but you're apparently not buying that either. You're still trying to find some way to define how to blame something on Pine Valley, and if you think I'm reading more into that then you intended just look at the title of this topic.

Again, I don't think there's anything particularly cluttered about my thinking, I'm just trying to have a discussion about the architecture of a few golf courses to see if there's any accuracy in some of the things you've said about them.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Framing - Blame it on Pine Valley!
« Reply #44 on: December 13, 2001, 04:54:19 PM »
Tom,
I don't want to debate the whole Huntingdon Valley issue again.  I apologize if I offended someone as that was not my intention at all.  HV is one of my favorite Flynn courses and its maintenance practices are second to none.  But I am entitled to my opinion (right or wrong).  If I said something like (I don't think Mackenzie would recognize Augusta National today) I'm entitled to that opinion.  I might be wrong, I might be right.  But guess what, no one will ever know?  I'm sure some members of the club would beg to differ.  Furthermore, I don't need to do detailed research on a golf course before making a statement.  Heck, at least I played the course and a ton of other Flynn designs to have some basis for my initial thoughts on HV.  And remember most of comments were on the C nine and we "now" all know that the C nine is an "unusual" nine for Flynn.  Maybe you feel everyone should wait till they have written a thesis on a course's history before they offer any comments.  My goodness, there are tons of people who critize courses and make much stronger comments/opinions then I did yet haven't even set foot on the property.  

I will send Whitten's comments to you seperately on Seminole but I will say this here that Ron's information on the course comes from Pete Dye (who is a long standing member).  According to him, the club reviewed the plans for the "original Ross greens" a number of years back trying to decide if they "should restore what they had".  The club elected to NOT do the restoration.  If you want to do more research on this, go for it.  I don't really care nor have the time to research every single comment someone passes on to me about a golf course.  If Ron and Pete turn out to be wrong, so be it, they'll stand corrected.  

I have no idea where you are coming from on Pine Valley.  Please read this carefully - All I said was that PV has had an impact on the "one to its own" design concept for golf holes.  Some may consider that framing to some extent.  

I'm entitled to my opinion Tom and there is no right or wrong answer here.  By the way, I think #5 at PV is a tough hole?  Are you going to debate that opinion as well  :)  
Mark
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Framing - Blame it on Pine Valley!
« Reply #45 on: December 13, 2001, 06:12:41 PM »
Mark:

Thanks for the response. We've discussed Huntingdon Valley enough and all the information is out now and on this site. You're sure entitled to your opinion but I would suggest that if you're going to call any golf course unrecognizable to the original designer it would help to know the facts and the details.

As for Seminole, I also thank you for the information about the green alterations. I had a call in to PeteD a month or more ago but never followed it up. I would certainly very much value what Pete knows as he has been there a while now. Another designer mentioned some things about the greens but asked not to be quoted and basically said like many course in Fla. the greens have gone through numerous gasings, regrassings, topdressings etc. I have all of Ross's original hole and green drawings in my possession and the greens look familiar to me although some of the green-end bunkering schemes don't.

As for Pine Valley, again, you certainly have every right to your opinion, whatever it is though, I'm not real certain. This thread and its title does give me some indication though. As for the "Pine Valley Syndrome", I do realize what it is and my own opinion about it and Pine Valley's responsibility in it is quite clear in my post of 12/12/2:17pm in the paragraph beginning with 'Thirdly.....'  

Hole #5 Pine Valley?--a very tough hole---congratulations!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Framing - Blame it on Pine Valley!
« Reply #46 on: December 13, 2001, 06:32:48 PM »
Mark
I've always been curious about the Seminole tale -- which seems to be based mostly on Pete Dye. The changes were suposedly made after the war in around 1947 after several years when the course layed fallow. I'm not sure when Pete started playing the course, but in 1947 he was 21. Perhaps he played the course a great deal as a teen ager or he was repeating his father's opinion. I'm sure the surfaces of the greens were replaced over the years, and perhaps that had some effect, but I can't imagine Dunphy and Watson significantly altering Ross's work which they were involved in creating and then preserving and protecting.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Framing - Blame it on Pine Valley!
« Reply #47 on: December 13, 2001, 06:55:34 PM »
Tom M,
I don't profess to know the details and am only a messenger on this one regarding Seminole.  There is an old saying, "don't shoot the messenger".  Evidently, Pete is the one who seems to have specifics on who did what.  His info. may even be hearsay, who knows.  Ron did tell me that Pete said Wilson worked on the bunkers in 1947, how extensively I don't know and didn't ask.  Maybe that's why Tom Paul mentioned his bunker comment above.  Ron also said a guy by the name of "Famous Amos" Jones was responsible for the current set of greens.  Ron did not know what influence or impact Wilson had on these if any??  Also, the club was looking at restoring the greens to the original designs a number of years back but decided against it.  
Mark
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Framing - Blame it on Pine Valley!
« Reply #48 on: December 13, 2001, 07:24:50 PM »
Mark
I've read that one about 1947 and Wilson. It seems unlikely that a novice architect would be given that responsibility, especially when the original architect was still alive and the man who built the course Watson was on hand as the long time green superitendent.

I think it would be mistake for Seminole to rebuild the greens based on Ross's plans without more information - like did Ross follow his plans religiously when he originally built the course.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Framing - Blame it on Pine Valley!
« Reply #49 on: December 13, 2001, 07:30:24 PM »
As far as Trent Jones involvement that's the first I've heard of that one. If it is true it would have to be the one (only) high profile remodeling job he didn't turn into a major publicity scheme - it doesn't seeem to fit his modus
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »