Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: david h. carroll on August 21, 2006, 12:11:01 PM
-
I know it's probably been discussed before somewhere in the Treehouse, but my search capabilities are pretty weak.
At any rate, why does #11 have such strange scalloped bunkers that seem so out of place with the rest of the golf course?
-
David - Could it be that the green is sort of in a valley where the natural look would be a scalloped hazard, rather than one flashed up or raised ?
-
If you're talking about the bunkering, there is a nearly perfectly round bunker out there today. The different look of yesteryear (1940, courtesy of Craig Disher) is certainly evident; the bunkers along the right side were not discreet as they are today:
Today:
(http://home.comcast.net/~wmorrison11/PVGC11.jpg)
1940:
(http://home.comcast.net/~wmorrison11/PVGC11b.jpg)
-
I'm wondering if Rees Jones was involved at PVGC during his round period?
-
I'm wondering if Rees Jones was involved at PVGC during his round period?
No, Tom, but it's part of what I've been noticing to be a purposeful standardization and formalization (and cleanup) of what used to be the wild, wooly, and clearly non linear PV look into something much less so.
You probably wouldn't be surprised to learn that another equally famous architect is involved.
-
To sum up the Rolling Stones:
I know, it's only Fazio but some like it.
It went like that, right?
-
Mike -
Number 11 has, for as long as I've been playing there, always been in contrast to the other holes. The formalized look of the hole existed long before Fazio got there, and for you to imply that Fazio is somehow responsible for it is pretty revealing. Moreover, I was at PV this past wknd for the first time in a couple of years and was looking hard for evidence of what you call the "formalization and standardization" to no avail. When you were there what did you notice?
-
Wayne--Thanks....the difference b/w those two aerials shows exactly what I mean...bunkers like the present ones are found nowhere else on the course.
While I do not believe these to be Fazio's work, I'd be interested to know who actually changed them into the ill fitting circles.
-
Sean,
I'm not sure if Fazio did anything on 11. I do know he widened the bunker left of 10 and formalized the whole area around the green and ditto for 14.
Are you telling me that there hasn't been an effort to make the bunkers more standardized so that they can be machine-raked with sandpros? As such, even the native grasses and other flora growing within the bunkers has been routinized such that machinery can drive in between them.
I'm sure Tom Paul and Wayne will tell you as much, and they get down there much more often than I do.
-
Well then why imply that #11 is part of what you've been noticing? I was looking for standardization and formalization, and I really found none. Sure, I could tell there were clearly areas where a sandpro could fit, but I would hardly call that formalization.
-
and it sure doesn't look like they're frequently raked
-
Sean/David,
That PV's sandy waste areas are being kept much more formalized, cleaned-up, and standardized than their past practices doesn't seem much in dispute and has been covered here countless times in the past.
The last I saw the course was Crump Cup 2005 with a member of this DG and we both found it lamentable.
If things are progressing in the other direction, then I would certainly welcome that news!
As far as Fazio's involvement, as the consulting architect for the club for at least the past decade or so, who exactly should receive the credit for the present state of any feature on the course, for better or worse?
-
Mike--but as for #11, those scallop circles were there before 2001....I just wonder who did them....was it a situation like George Cobb at Augusta?
-
Mike - In your first post on this thread, you implied that Fazio was responsible for the observation made by D H Carroll, and backed up by Wayne's comments, namely that the bunker ahapes, etc. on the right side of 11 are out of character with the rest of course. I don't think that's true.
As for the clean up, it is unmistakeable, but I just don't see what you mean by "formalization" or "standardization." That just seems like an extreme description, calculated more to indulge your feelings about Fazio, as opposed to Pine Valley. I, personally, think that cleanup at PV is a step in the right directions. The course has more formal bunkering (as opposed to waste, scrub) in the trees than some clubs have on their entire course.
What exactly do you find so lamentable?
-
What is it, Mike - 5 years or a decade? And let's focus on his actual work there, as opposed to just his membership or passive consulting arrangement.
-
Sean,
I don't have much time at present to engage in debate.
You like the bunker cleanup that was done at Pine Valley. So be it, I don't. I think the idea that you leave enough room around plantings, grasses, etc. to drive through with a machine gives them a very symmetrical, forced appearance, and also belies what used to be their fearsome irregularity and unpredictability.
If Fazio has been purely in a "passive" consulting arrangement, then you can't credit him and I can't blame him.
Fair enough?
-
How about this: we'll engage in debate when you have the time. ;D
-
That works Sean. ;D
btw, did Fazio build the new hyper-elevated tee on 14, or was he a passive observer? ;)
-
I liked the new tee on #14 as it brought back the original shot values. I thought the new tees on all of the holes were good. None were out of character with the original intent of the course IMO. #16 is a bear now instead of the three wood 9 iron it used to be. #18 is a monster too. All in all it was a great weekend.
-
Jim,
Most of the new tees are pretty well done. My quibble with the one on 14 is simply that it is so obviously contrived and artificial. The original tees were simply cut into the existing hillside while the new one is built pyramid-like atop it. I think it's unlike any other tee on the property and that's not a compliment.
The back left tee on 12 is also one that troubles me, simply because there is absolutely no reason to do anything on the hole from there but try to hit it as far down the right side as possible. I'm not sure that Crump designed the hole to be so one-dimensional, but until they take down the trees on the left hiding the field of bunkers, it's a moot point.
Finally, the angle of the tee on 18 is quite a bit to the right than the original, meaning that a fade from the tee is now almost a required shot. Given the proximity to the 17th green of the original tee however, there was no way to get around that problem and still lengthen the hole.
BTW, I'm one of the fans of the Fazio green on the 8th, so contrary to Sean's assertions, this isn't personal. It's more about his work. Did I mention I'm a big fan of Trump National in NJ? ;)
-
Jim,
I'd also like to see the new back tee on 16 a bit closer to ground level, but with the natural upslope back there, the visual presentation does differ from the original tee.
However, it was never a 3-wood, 9 iron for me! ;D
-
Mike - I tend to agree with you on those points, but on 14, if they decided to lengthen the hole, I don't know where else you'd go. If they stayed at grade, then you probably wouldn't be able to see the hole. I don't really mind it all that much. Nor do I really mind all the other tees, but perhaps that's because they are just amusement to me, not a realistic playing ground.
I hate the right green on 8! (i guess love-hate is more appropriate). I love the green, hate what it does to my scorecard. On Saturday, while driving to the range I breathed a sigh of relief upon seeing the pin cut on the left green. But when we got to the hole, we found they had switched it in the intervening 2 hours to the right green. :'( >:(
-
Sean,
On 14, I though they could lower it a bit while still maintaining decent target visibility. While I tend to like blindness, I don't find blind-shot, drop-shot par threes to be particularly enjoyable so I'm not going to argue for that.
As far as the Fazio green on 8, I think he did a superb job in matching the fearsome rigors of the original. I know it hasn't been particularly well-received in some quarters, but I thought it was a courageous attempt, well executed.
-
Mike - I think its diabolical, and like it for that reason (in a masochistic sort of way). It is far more severe than the left green - perhaps too severe when you consider its size. I saw an unbelievable putt made there this weekend, with the player playing basically up hill to a flatter portion to take some speed off before beginning the quick march down to the front. his back was to the hole.
-
Sean -
What time did you play Sunday? We went off at 8:40 and had the left green.
I agree with you that the 14th tee box needed to be elevated in order to see the green. Some people are tough as I did not find it too contrived. I thought the 16th tee box flowed nicely with the others banck up the hill.
Mike -
I would agree that the trees on the left of #12 should come down as it would certainly give the golfer an idea of what was out there. Now you just bang it as far as you can to avoid the bunkers on the approach. I heard someone made a hole-in-one from the right tee recently. First time ever.
-
Sean -
Some people are tough as I did not find it too contrived.
Jim,
Who would that be? ;)
Seriously, I just thought it looked out of place. Most of the tees at PV are exceptionally well integrated both visually and functionally, and that includes most of the new tees.
A hole in one on 12? Perhaps it's time for me to come out of the stone age and buy some new equipment after all. ;D
-
Mike -
You sound like my host ;). I am trying to get him to buy some new equipment as well. I keep saying "Let technology be your friend".
As for #14, I believe they had to elevate the tee box and in a couple of years you won't even notice it. It certainly did not have an easy path to get there.
-
Sean -
What time did you play Sunday? We went off at 8:40 and had the left green.
I agree with you that the 14th tee box needed to be elevated in order to see the green.
Jim - The right green was in play on Saturday, but on the way out to the range at ~7, the pin was clearly cut in the right green. You are right, on Sunday the left green was in play thankfully. I had two nightmare trips through #8R on Saturday. I can never get my distance right into that hole. Invariably I distrust the caddy, and, consequently, distrust my swing. I live in that back bunker.
Some people are tough as I did not find it too contrived.
You have to understand - Mike is not satisfied with a golf course unless it is falling apart in a constant state of disrepair. His idea of "benign neglect" would make Papa Doc blush.
-
Sean--I too have great difficulty with both greens at 8 and i think i had 45-50 yrds both days...first day right green, hit a good shot that went in the back left bunker after good 4wd tee shot and Sunday left green, laid back w/ 3i and then chunkola flip wedge....ugh.
As to the 18th tee and forcing a cut, I completely disagree...there's plenty of room long and left.
-
Jim,
Yes, the blades do not understand the meaning of the word "forgiveness". :P
David,
"Forced" is probably too strong a word. Let's just say the hole now begs for one. ;)
Sean,
Speaking of "forced" and begging", I love it!! Check my new postscript! ;D
-
Mike -
I don't know what to say. Now I'm blushing. I consider it a distinct honor to grace the postscript of not one, but TWO people on this site. ;D
-
david h carroll:
In my opinion, there is no question the 11th hole as routed is a Colt routed hole. In Crump's only known routing before Colt arrived there was no hole routed in this landform (except that Crump's original routing had the 15th green in the same position as the present 11th green).
The bunkering scheme on #11 is Crump's (Govan) not Colt's and the bunker placements you see in both photos are from the original construction, although Hugh Alison completely redesigned the present green from Crump's original that did not apparently work very well in play.
No bunkering on the body of this hole (other than the greenside bunkering) was ever redesigned from the original hole.
Most on here see slightly different shapes on the more modern aerial from the earlier aerial and start to assume those bunkers were redesigned. That's not true at all and the different shapes are obviously just a result of evolutionary changes over time probably due to general maintenance practices, normal bunker evolution etc.
The sand surfaces of PVGC have in the last few years been regularly maintained (sand proed and raked probably daily), and generally cleaned up from the way they used to be less than ten years ago when PVGC's bunkering was basically raked by maintenance only every so often, and generally in daily play had footprints everywhere. There are no rakes on the course and there never have been.
By the way, Crump's intention, had he lived was to move the 11th green up onto the hillside near the water tower and turn the hole into more of a dogleg left. His idea was to make the approach shot one to a very high green to mimic the approach to the hole on the front nine in the same position (#2) as #11 is on the back nine.
-
One feature to notice on both photographs is the use of the treeline that juts out on the left side of the hole. These strategic trees mean that the tee shot must be played to a position that leaves an open shot to the green and not too far left where the fairway continues on in a way that restricts a shot away from the green.
-
Wayne,
To my eye, the trees of today cut in much more prominently. I'd say at least 50% of the fairway. Don't get me wrong, I think its a wonderful strategic feature, making the player either lay back in front of the right scrub, or try to thread a driver down the narrow chute.
Do you have any ground level shots of the 11th contemporary with your 1940 aerial? Or better still, something that dates from the early Steiniger days?
-
Sean,
Sorry, I don't have any early ground photos of the 11th.
-
TEPaul--very interesting that you feel the original intent/design was to create the same heroice sense of uphill shot found at #2 while in its current state, I think #11 plays a fair amount like #17 in terms of the tee shot and then angle to the green....albeit a very different green complex, but many other similarities in the holes.
-
"I know it's Only Fazio and I DON'T Like it."
Bill:
In fairness to Fazio, I don't believe the sand-proed bunkers is Fazio but anyway, he takes the rap on here for practically everything and anything those on here don't like so why not just heap that one on him too? ;)
-
Ok, the "consulting architect" who has not consulted in a sensitive manner concerning the historical nature of PVGC's sand maintenance.
Better? ;D
Bill,
According to Sean, Tom Fazio is in a "passive consulting" role there.
I'm not sure what that means, but it sure sounds to me like a job I'd love.
Does this mean he only does the work he is asked to do by the club? If so, then what is the value of his consultation?
Or, does he consult and make recommendations but do so in a vacuum so nobody hears him, which renders it a passive consult?
Or, is it passive aggressive behavior, where he marches up the club leadership and says things like, "You didn't hear this from me but golly that sand would look better raked and framed with some tight grass edging, and if you want to do that I know some guys who have sandpros and you're already paying for them to sit around so perhaps if one of you gave the word that they should perhaps start their engines and drive around for a little bit then no one would be the wiser, or otherwise I'm sending them over to Pine Hill."? ;) ;D
I'm not sure how an active verb like "consult" gets modified with "passive", but it also sounds like a great way to ensure the buck stops nowhere near here...unless, of course, there are plaudits to be garnered. ;D
-
Redanman - I'll give it to you in 3 (and you already supported it)- bunkers in trees
Mike - Fazio's a member (as is his son). He (w/ransome) designed the short course, which is well liked. by virtue of these two things, i think he becomes the de facto consulting architect. do you think that until recently he has been pretty active?
-
Sean,
I've heard pretty good things about the Short Course. I'm an idiot for never having ventured over to look at it yet. And, as I mentioned, I really like the 8th alternate green.
I'm assuming he was probably involved with the new tees, the addition of narrowing bunkers on 9 & 18, with the bunker work on a number of hole like 10, 14, and with some of the tree removal? Is it a stretch to think he's also involved with what I'll call the excessive maintenance of the sandy wastelands? I'm asking because I don't know the answer but I can't imagine that he isn't?
My joking post was that it sounds like a perfect job description that anyone would want. After all, if you could become a "passive counsel" to your clients, you could claim all the victories and any losses could be chocked up to them not utlizing your skills and expertise effectively! ;D
-
"Ok, the "consulting architect" who has not consulted in a sensitive manner concerning the historical nature of PVGC's sand maintenance.
Better?"
No, Bill, not better.
What if the "consulting architect" or Tom Fazio or whatever else you want to call him had no input at all into how the bunker sand surfaces are maintained today vs how they used to be maintained (less raking and sandproing)?
Tom Fazio is a golf course architect who belongs to Pine Valley and is their consulting architect. What makes you think he also runs PVGC's maintenance department?