[Patrick_Mucci]

Alan,

Wayne's question, as he was standing on the ridge behind the 9th green was:

"Are the trees too important for the stability of the hillside to remove? 
Does it matter?" 

My position is that the Pines on top of the ridge are not instrumental or important to the stability of the steep bank behind them due to the shallow nature of the root system of the pines.

A root system that only entends 6 to 18 inches below the surface isn't going to migrate down to the slope of that steep bank and stabilize it..

If you wanted to stabilize the steep bank below the ridge, you'd use Oaks or other trees known for extensive and deep root systems, root systems that would go down 6 to 20+ feet.  Root systems that would become invasive to that steep bank.
 
 

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

Alan and Patrick

thanks for your insights!  Seriously.  Pretend for a moment, that we're not talking about Pine Valley.  Would it be worth reinstating the skyline effect of green site like this?  If so, what's an appropriate alternative to shoring up the bank w/o compromising the vista?

W

[Patrick_Mucci]

Alan and Patrick

thanks for your insights!  Seriously.  Pretend for a moment, that we're not talking about Pine Valley.  Would it be worth reinstating the skyline effect of green site like this?  If so, what's an appropriate alternative to shoring up the bank w/o compromising the vista?

Wayne,

If you've ever been to Riviera in California, then you know what it takes to shore up a really steep bank, banks far steeper and more prone to erosion/destruction than Pine Valley's.

The answer to your question is yes, it would be worth it to reinstate the skyline green on # 9 and # 2.

Change comes difficult to many, including myself, but, where there's a will, there's a way.

It would be easy, though maybe not inexpensive to shore up the bank behind # 9.
It would be eassy and inexpensive to make # 2 a skyline green again.

But, does the leadership have the vision to do so ?
And, if they have the vision, do they have the inclination ?

Ditto the mound in the 18th green.

Pine Valley has made significant changes over the years.
One could site the second greens on holes # 8 and 9 as significant changes.

They've made some progress in tree removal.

They've added a great number of back tees.
3, 4, 7, 14, 15, 16 and 18

They created a ten hole course with 8 replica holes.

So change isn't outside of their wheelhouse.

It's their focus that has to be directed.

The real issue is getting them to see the value of restoring those features.
Getting them to see the incremental benefit to all those who would play the course after those changes.

And, if you're a traditionalist or a purist, why wouldn't you want to recapture or restore Crump's vision as manifested in his architectural intent.

Crump was a genius and Pine Valley reflects that genius in the quality of each and every hole.
Why not refine and return holes/features that have been altered over time, either by man or Mother Nature ?

W

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()