[Stephen Davis]

TEP.     I would like to know the genesis in order of their construction , if possible. Thanks !

I second this!

[Will Lozier]

Gents,

I apologize for my part in letting the discussion get so off topic.  However, I think it is important to dispute the claim that PV's greens reject perfectly executed shots.  Great greens don't do this.  What they do do is reject and punish marginal shots.  I think this is very pertinent to the original thread. 

I love that pic from the left of #2...a surfer could get excited about that incoming set! 

Tom Paul, has that green had that contour from its origins? 

Cheers

[archie_struthers]

 

Will , if anything Pine ValLey accepts perfectly executed shots better than anywhere I can think of. Its why homecourt advantage there is so huge.  Lots of good birdie putts if you hit it in the right quadrant.    The problem isn't so much hitting the green but two putting from the wrong positions.

[Joe Bausch]

Here's a rather big picture (use the slider bar!) of the 2nd green from a few years ago.  It is still my favorite green anywhere.

[Will Lozier]

Will , if anything Pine Valey accepts perfectly executed shots better than anywhere I can think of, it's why. Home court advantage there is so huge.  Lots of good birdie putts if you hit it in the right quadrant.    The problem isn't so much hitting the green but two putting from the wrong positions.

Sorry Archie!  I didn't mean to dismiss anyone - you obviously have a great deal to offer!  Could you please comment further on that quality?  That is what I have always read and heard and I'd love to hear you expound a bit.

I can't recall seeing so much green contour on any other course save for Oakmont. 

Joe B., thanks for the additional pic!  It really is an incredible green...it must be to standout on that property!

Cheers

[Mark McKeever]

Absolutely my favorite green on the course as well.

Mark

[Sean Leary]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the green on #2 been slightly altered since Scott's visit in 2010?

Yes. I have heard it as a positive from a member because there are some new pin positions that weren't possible before because of modern green speeds.

I am sure many will disagree, partially because of who did the work.

[Mark McKeever]

Joe and I looked at two green pretty hard at the Crump cup last year.  It's tough to tell differences, but the green is now able to have some more pin positions up front.

Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gents,

I apologize for my part in letting the discussion get so off topic.  However, I think it is important to dispute the claim that PV's greens reject perfectly executed shots. 

Will Lozier,
Would you cite, with specificity, where anyone claimed that PV's greens reject perfectly executed shots.

Great greens don't do this.  What they do do is reject and punish marginal shots.  I think this is very pertinent to the original thread. 
How would you know ?
I  thought you hadn't  seen them

I love that pic from the left of #2...a surfer could get excited about that incoming set! 

Tom Paul, has that green had that contour from its origins? 

Regrettably, # 2 green has been softened recently due to increased green speeds.

It's unfortunate, especially since it's the contouring and slopes which give greens their character.
While the green remains an exceptional green, it's lost some of it's soul.

[Will Lozier]

Will Lozier,
Would you cite, with specificity, where anyone claimed that PV's greens reject perfectly executed shots.

[/b][/size][/color]Great greens don't do this.  What they do do is reject and punish marginal shots.  I think this is very pertinent to the original thread.  

Patrick Mucci,

You did...about the green at the 1st.  Sorry, you said "great", not perfect.  But I won't be baited further.  I've tried to take our debate off the board and into PM's...to which you have yet to respond.  

Cheers

[Patrick_Mucci]

Will Lozier,
Would you cite, with specificity, where anyone claimed that PV's greens reject perfectly executed shots.

[/b][/size][/color]Great greens don't do this.  What they do do is reject and punish marginal shots.  I think this is very pertinent to the original thread.  

Patrick Mucci,

You did...about the green at the 1st.  

NO, I didn't
That's why I asked you to cite the reference, preferring that you quote the exact passage.
The fact that you're unable to produce that quote is proof that you've been intellectually dishonest.

But I won't be baited further.  

Let me see if I understand this.
You deliberately fabricate something, and when caught and called on it, you claim that you won't be baited.
I don't want you to be baited, I want you to be honest and factual

I've tried to take our debate off the board and into PM's...to which you have yet to respond.  


You sent me one PM, which I just read for the first time 30 seconds ago.
The one in which you claimed that almost every hole can be played with a putter, thereby attempting to deny the "minimum standard" carry.




Cheers

[TEPaul]

Scott and Archie:

Even though it has never been written in any single place I'm aware of there is enough contributing evidence in the archives of Pine Valley to assume or even conclude that Crump essentially began his routing at the beginning-----at what is now the first hole and just went forward in the sequence we know until he got stuck at #5.

But from this evidence in the archives he apparently began to build the first four holes first and even long before his eventual routing was finalized.

The green on #1 is an unusual one and it is sort of hard to know just how much he had to build it up in that position its in (the contour lines are so faint right now in that part of his PRE-construction topographical survey map it is hard to tell, and actually it appears to me the contour lines may not have ever exactly run that far or very completely compared to the rest of the map).

Early on Crump had some real agronomic problems with that green (as he did with many others) and around 1914 decided to change it into what was known as a "Taylor green" (Frederick Winslow Taylor was a remarkable Quaker Philadelphian; rich, a natural inventor and famous for a number of things with golf agronomy but particularly for inventing the so-Called Taylor Management Method on which most of the world's manufacturing corporations' employer/employee structure, production and relationships are founded upon. The Taylor Green Construction Method was a precusor to the USGA spec green but with its stratae on something of a 45% angle. They were very expensive to make but they worked beautifully. Other than #1 there are five other "Taylor Greens" at Pine Valley. Crump apparently intended to change all his greens to "Taylor" greens but Taylor died in 1915. He had a personal gardener by the name of Bender who actually did the work but things got confused with Taylor agronomic issues during the probate of Taylor's estate.*

*That is another interesting story considering who got involved with Taylor's agronomic research and experience just after he died and what it all lead to eventually. (Lester George, the foregoing is another example of just what a small and interrelated world the people were at that time).

[Malcolm Mckinnon]

Tom Paul!,

Please elaborate regarding the "Taylor Green" system. What is it???

Why did Crump only target six greens at PVGC for the system??? Which greens were they?

Also, please advise the template "match play hole" that number one at PVGC is based on. I, too, am compelled to play to the front of that green in fear of the penal nature of the back 1/3. Unfortunately, three putts are my norm. What a great golf hole to repel par! which such ease.



Malcolm

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()