....
Everyone might not understand how fast mother nature can reclaim her land without constant vigilance, hence plantings often stabilize or prevent unwanted weed and growths that are unseemly. Twisted Dune which we built almost twenty years ago is an example of how much can grow without a constant fight. It is in really good shape running faster than it has in years but I'm startled how many small pine trees et al grew over the years.
Back to Pine Valley...I previously mentioned Dick Bator and would be remiss if he wasn't singled out as one of the main reasons Pine Valley has spectacular playing conditions to this day. He exposed acres of sand that had been overgrown and I specifically remember him wielding a scythe and a rake with a ferocity you would not believe on the 13 th hole in the long waste bunker leading to the green. I was afraid to talk to him for a while after watching this! lol
....
Since PV had such a large place in my life and I love it as much as Archie I wanted add a few more thoughts on this since PV was specifically mentioned in the original post - which I don't agree with it being used as an example.
Like all courses it ebbs and flows with Mother Natures hand and maybe at PV it happens more due to the amount of natural type areas where she can move quickly as she can't be kept in check as much as manicured areas. When I took over the Short Course it had become pretty overgrown even though it was only 7 years old and I spent the first few months reclaiming it from Mother Nature. The same goes for the main course and any stroll though the woods reveals dips and shapes that may have been bunkers or just deposits/holes left from construction....
As Archie mentioned the reduction of erosion was a priority which is why the islands etc popped up mainly in the 30s and 40s. Even with them in place heavy storms can wreak havoc on the sand. Over the last few years the trend has been to remove these and make it look closer (within reason) to the original pictures from the teens and 20s).
Saying that lets face it - the fact that the waste areas are machine raked more than once a week does not make those features or the course any easier - a little fairer maybe, by reducing the risk of a bad lie in the sand, but not easier. They may look fluffier (and if that makes you think it's more inviting more power to you) and there is less chance of landing in a footprint but the severity of the elevations etc hasn't changed and therefore the shot is still extremely challenging - and I ask why would anyone would want to have a more difficult shot hitting from a footprint. As for original design intent on raking bunkers there. I think had they had the ability to efficiently rake them back then they would - it's just with that amount of sand it was unpractical until the Sandpro was invented.
Lastly the superintendent Rick Christian has been there for over 30 years and along with the membership and staff are custodians of everything Pine Valley. They know who and what they are and no decision that may change that is taken likely, so while it's fun to be critical here, PV will always remain number 1 as those in charge know and care about it makes it special.
Alan,
Really appreciate you posting and getting insight into the behind-the-scenes on some of the decisions and thinking behind the maintenance of the course. I hope you don't think the OP was being critical of PV as that was not my intention. In fact, I believe PV is flawless or very near flawless. My intention was simply to debate whether original design intent or playability is more important. The photo I saw sparked that question, so I've relayed where the inspiration for the question came from.
Talking about PV specifically, I agree with Tommy that the course is still darn hard, but maybe in slightly different ways now. For example, the greens didn’t run at their current speeds when the course first opened. So I do believe the design intent is well in tact as a difficult course that can challenge the best players (as it does every year during the Crump).
That said, whether for maintenance purposes or to get higher-handicappers around quicker, there can be no doubt that the more manicured waste areas are easier to play out of than if they were left to their own devices (with work from the maintenance crews to ensure mother nature didn’t encroach too far).
I’m not saying this is better or worse, just that it does take it further away from the original intent of the course rather than closer to it. Would Pine Valley be a better course if the waste areas were less maintained on a daily basis? I don’t know. But I do believe it is probably less of an exacting test for the very best golfers.
To take an example from North Berwick: this past winter, the bunker on 17 was very nearly altered to make the shot more playable for the average golfer. But that one, very penal bunker dictated strategy all the way back to the tee. Good players knew they needed a good drive and good second to get over the bunker, and without that serious penalty waiting, the hole would lose its interest.
I think the same could be applied to the 7th at PV. Without HHA being a brutal penalty, it wouldn’t put the same pressure on the tee shot and second.
I believe it was Mackenzie who wrote in the Sprit of St Andrews that he wrote to PV and received a curt letter back that said something along the lines of ‘Pine Valley is for expert golfers only. My question: is that the same today? Is it only for one type of golfer? Is it better or worse if it is or isn’t and does it matter?!
I have no pony as it relates to that specific question being applied to PV. I’m just curious about what we value more as a GCA community: playability or intent
