Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Rick Sides on December 27, 2009, 05:24:09 PM
-
Does anyone here have any old photos of Pine Valley they could post? Any year or picture would be great. Thanks
-
how is this...
-
more...
-
Wow, these are great. Thanks for posting. What a place that is....
-
Michael Dugger,
Thanks for posting those photos, they're great.
I've long advocated restoring PV to the way it was in the 4th photo.
-
I've got more....someone posted most of these ages ago....
-
...
-
I would hope Archie Struthers would chime in here to walk us thru these old photo's.
-
Thanks for posting the photos Michael. Pretty sweet.
-
Michael,
It looks like a portion of the "pimple" in the 18th green is visible in one of your photos.
What year was that taken ?
-
Thanks for sharing these type of photos. This is one reason I enjoy this site so much.
-
Great pictures!
Heres each hole in order of the pictures.
2
6
3
Aerial Photo is dated 1924 and in the asst supers office (you can see the horses gang mowing 16 fwy in the full version)
2 tee
2 green
Second set
4
I'm actually not 100% sure but I think its 11.....
5 (notice the lady on the tee!!)
6
10
third set
14
18 green looking back
18 green
18 tee
16
18 green
fourth set
6
17
10
-
Great courses look as good - or better - in black and white.
Thanks for posting these. Stunning, really.
WW
-
For those of you who don't know Alan was the assistant super at Pine Valley quite a few years back.
He would be a great person to ask questions if you have any.
-
Doesn't look like the alternate fairway is there on 17. Did we ever figure out what time period that went away?
-
Here's a few more:
-
These pics are incredible. I was fortunate enough to work as an assistant superintendent there along with Alan. Alan, I agree that must be #11 on the one you were not too sure on. Looks like the now left hand green on #8 in the background.
-
Could it be #4 looking away from the clubhouse towards the first green?
Also, look at this last picture Bryan just posted...no DA on #10.
-
Could it be #4 looking away from the clubhouse towards the first green?
Jim, that's what I thought when i first saw the photo.
-
Doug,
Yeah, I wouldn't say I am confident, but the green just doesn't seem like #11 even though it's not ver clear...can't think of any other holes with that view in the distance of another green like this besides 11 and 4.
Hope you're well.
-
;D ;D ;D 8) 8) 8)
Really great stuff someday all of the PV alums have to get together for a beer and some golf ....let's start planning before I get too old
Pretty sure Mr. Sully is right about the green it's almost surely #4 looking out from where the clubhouse is today right out of "Charley's " window the green is too big and flat for 11 also the bunker still exists on the left and you can see bflashes of #1 bunkering
first picture is also # 2 tee not #1
I am totally in love with the last picture of # 6 but it doesn't give the right perspective as the tee area and fairway are almost at the same elevation today and for at least the last forty years.....could this have been an early tee ????? if so they should immediately consider rebuilding it as it is awesome..... what do you guys think ??????
thanks Bruce for the plug GO Eagles!
-
Michael,
It looks like a portion of the "pimple" in the 18th green is visible in one of your photos.
What year was that taken ?
Thats what I thought as well. However, if the pimple is in the middle of the green, wouldn't that green be just enormous? I know that is a big green but its not THAT big.
-
Has the 14th (par 3) ever been more open than pictured above. On a website where we critique greatness, that would be my #1 critique.
-
;D ;D ;D 8) 8) 8)
Really great stuff someday all of the PV alums have to get together for a beer and some golf ....let's start planning before I get too old
Pretty sure Mr. Sully is right about the green it's almost surely #4 looking out from where the clubhouse is today right out of "Charley's " window the green is too big and flat for 11 also the bunker still exists on the left and you can see bflashes of #1 bunkering
first picture is also # 2 tee not #1
I am totally in love with the last picture of # 6 but it doesn't give the right perspective as the tee area and fairway are almost at the same elevation today and for at least the last forty years.....could this have been an early tee ????? if so they should immediately consider rebuilding it as it is awesome..... what do you guys think ??????
thanks Bruce for the plug GO Eagles!
I'm a little embarrassed on the first picture, I started to list the pictures by number and got distracted...... :-[ I fixed it
I can see how that picture could be 4 green looking from the proshop, but the bunkering left of the green, particularly the knob and the sand flash to the left looked to me like the bunkering to the left of 11 green while the bunkering to the right sort of lines up with the cart path intersection coming down from nine.
As for the DA, as far as I know (and legend has it!) it was created by a washout, they liked it and kept it.
-
My have the tree grown!
14 today
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3200/2700743024_b498cb0e70_b.jpg)
18 tee
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3125/2700743912_b0899a30ff_b.jpg)
tee on 7
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3261/2699916701_25ebe86e8c_b.jpg)
tee on 17
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3191/2699925303_bb6aaa318e_b.jpg)
approach on 2
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3109/2700728274_fe918acd99_b.jpg)
#10
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3288/2700734684_e4b5a67d3b_b.jpg)
#5
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3181/2700730102_4b44cb59f3_b.jpg)
#16 tee
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3143/2699924143_6b63f310f6_b.jpg)
#6 tee
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3232/2700730486_b05c4773bb_b.jpg)
#3
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3018/2699914045_0756da2c87_b.jpg)
-
8) ;D 8)
Alan no worries mate ...good work on the photos ...
Having looked out the pro shop window for days on end (lol complaining about being at Pine Valley ) the bunker threw me off at first as it does look too pronounced but the size and contour of the green sure looks like #4r ....I think Sully is right ...he just beat me to the punch .....could
Back to the tee ground on #6 ....If the tee shot was more uphill.....just love it
-
Have they ever cleared trees on the property or considered doing so?
Amazing how open the course looks in Michael's fantastic photos - those are amazing.
-
Michael Duggar's picture of #10 is amazing with the short grass between the DA left bunker and green.
-
These are a couple of old ones I found in my files while looking for a picture of 11. I have to agree with Archie and Jim that it is 4. After thinking back I do remember some real large funky contours in the direction of Dickensons House (and where they are in the picture), almost like they had excess material they needed to get rid of during construction so they just mounded it up in the woods.
this ones from 1938
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2550/4224327412_9ebea5e947_b.jpg)
and this is from 1940
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2569/4224327360_aa0ed0a9ed_b.jpg)
-
Alan,
Great Pictures. Do you have any others in the file?
-
Is there an inland course in the world with such striking hazards?
It is incredible how the sand, trees, grass, water, presents an awe inspiring dynamic in these black and white photos.
-
Regarding trees, it's interesting how Augusta gets criticized while Pine Valley gets a pass.
Fantastic photographs. Thanks to all.
MIke
-
Alan,
Great Pictures. Do you have any others in the file?
Unfortunately that's it, as I lost a bunch a few years back when my old computer crashed and I wasn't backed up..... ::)
-
Alan Fitzgerald mentioned "Notice the lady on the tee!" of the 5th hole. She is the same lady, & so is the gentleman, who can be seen in Michael Dugger's post #2 photo #3.
Her name is Lillian Tillinghast and she is the wife of her playing partner who is also in both photos, A.W. Tillinghast. These are the ONLY two known photographs of Lillian with a golf club in her hands!
Recently, a copy of the photograph that Michael included in his first reply was discovered by Andy Mutch in the Pine Valley archives.
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/TILLY_FRONT.png)
As stunning as this photo is, it is what Tilly himself wrote on the back of it that surprised all:
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/TILLY_BACK.png)
-
The trees at PV really frame the landing areas and holes. I think they are generally good hazards and enhance the venue. I could lose or trim the one on #7, which affects the back tees and trim some on #8, and possibly #12 ... but would hate to see the place denuded.
-
Has anyone played the short course and have photos they can post??
-
Wonderful pictures..what a remarkable difference on the majority of the views.
Interesting to share thoughts on what looks better and what does the treehouse think has been spoiled bu the increased growth?
To me the tee shot on number 4 for instance is more intimidating now than it was before growth.
Number five look more intimidating with that green just standing there as a skyline green...hell nothing to aim at!
The view of 18 was probably the most differnet to me..but what great photos...thanks for sharing.
My guess is that the general view will be in support of the "more tree removal" brigade...comments?
-
I have - it's really well done.
There was no point taking photos when 8 of the 10 are the same "shots" as the originals.
The work is remarkably accurate to the original settings.
-
I agree the short course is remakable..it resembles the equivalent shots on the 'big' course perfectly.
Could well be Fazio's best work ;)
-
Were the trees not planted in part as a way to stabilize the surrounding soil? I seem to remember reading that here on a past thread. What would the plan be to perform that function after the trees are removed?
I also remember a thread not too long ago that showed pictures of bunkering that was now surrounded by trees, and discussion regarding the playing corridors being restored to that point. It seems like it would be hard for anyone to argue against removing enough tree growth for that purpose.
-
Kirk..
this is gca people can argue with anything ;D
-
Regarding trees, it's interesting how Augusta gets criticized while Pine Valley gets a pass.
Fantastic photographs. Thanks to all.
MIke
Michael,
I was thinking along the same lines here...not sure why Pine Valley gets a free pass because it just might be the best course that would benefit hugely from a massive tree reduction program.
-
Pine Valley gets killed for its trees every time there is a thread on it...but Augusta gets killed more because they host the Masters and therefore has more written about it and is more visible...
-
The trees at PV really frame the landing areas and holes. I think they are generally good hazards and enhance the venue. I could lose or trim the one on #7, which affects the back tees and trim some on #8, and possibly #12 ... but would hate to see the place denuded.
The trees to the left on #11 make for a very difficult tee shot for a left to right player like me. The tee shot from the back tee on #9 was also difficult for this reason. I hit trees less than 100 yards off the tee on both holes with slightly offline tee shots. I need to work on a R-L tee ball for the next trip if I'm lucky enough to have one, though that's tough to do after 45 years of L-R!
Like Augusta, Pine Valley is a great golf course that doesn't need trees for any effect, especially not in the playing corridors. Jim's right--PV doesn't get a pass for this and has been written up on here several times for this, especially pertaining to bunkers lost in the trees. I think PV has addressed some of this (not due to commentary hereon, though, most likely).
-
Moreso than any golf course photographs I've seen, those posted depict pure genius.
Mike
-
Chip,
What year were your pics taken? There has been some tree clearing, and the course does not feel claustrophobic at all.
-
and this is from 1940
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2569/4224327360_aa0ed0a9ed_b.jpg)
Note the "Mackenzie tongue" on the first green (bottom right corner of photo).
TK
-
Has anyone played the short course and have photos they can post??
I didn't realize these are that old.... but it hasn't changed much since then, the zoysia hadn't fully come out of dormancy when I took these.
SC1 copy of 10
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2521/4226281677_6e9e3dbfd9.jpg)
SC2 copy of 14
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2746/4227050182_c3be785137.jpg)
SC3 copy of 16
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2544/4227049844_83aef200bc.jpg)
SC3 closer to the green
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4036/4227049704_33144b6e93.jpg)
SC4 original design
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2688/4226281235_cd168dcf10.jpg)
SC5 copy of 15 and the only par 4 on the SC (tee shot)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4044/4226281367_cd28111b75.jpg)
SC5 second shot
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2789/4227050102_c897e67a17.jpg)
SC6 copy of 3
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4039/4227049768_4115e2d7a2.jpg)
SC7 copy of 13
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4072/4227049228_5333492d88.jpg)
SC8 copy of 17
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2510/4226281307_cd21c872fd.jpg)
SC9 original design The Philly skyline is on the horizon
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4065/4227049138_97fb482e5f.jpg)
SC10 copy of 2
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4068/4226281735_7101ca264e.jpg)
-
Tyler Kearns,
That's a good observation.
What bothers me most about PV from a management and "purity of the product" they treasure, is how benign neglect has been able to reign
supreme over all these years. I could see it happening if they changed Boards and Presidents every two years, but, that's not the case.
Your observation brings another issue to light.
Armed with all of the aerial and ground photos available to PV, why haven't they restored valuable, critical features lost over the years ?
This is a club that treasures its history, its heritage, yet, they've allowed that which they treasure most, the golf course as Crump designed and built
it, to morph further an further away from Crump's vision.
WHY ?
As custodians and protectors of Crump's architecture, why haven't they been more proactive ?
-
What bothers me most about PV from a management and "purity of the product" they treasure, is how benign neglect has been able to reign
supreme over all these years. I could see it happening if they changed Boards and Presidents every two years, but, that's not the case.
Somewhere deep in his bunker,TEPaul has composed a long response to this which will,unfortunately,never see the light of day.
-
It was a search for pictures of Pine Valley that first brought Golf Club Atlas to my attention some years ago. There's something about that course that sparks the imagination. Before I joined here I'd never met a single person who had played there.
One thing that really strikes me looking at the difference between the old pictures and the more recent ones is how in the older ones the grass just looks like it's draped over the sand, where now the look is more conventional, grass with pits of sand (even though some of those pits are huge). I kind of get the same feeling looking at older pictures of Cypress Point and comparing them to recent pics.
I was talking to Tom Paul about PV, and his recollection was that the alternate fairway on 17 (like much of that hole a design element of Hugh Alison) dropped out of use over time, and that the long-time superintendent there said that it was hard for the hoses to reach it! Apparently the green on 17 was constructed by Flynn, and combined elements of two different plans for the green that Alison had created. Alison left prior to construction.
He also mentioned that the picture some were wondering about from that second set of pics on the first page of the thread was indeed of the fourth green, looking back from the clubhouse, and that the fellow on the right in the white hat is in fact Mr. Crump himself.
No mention, JM, regarding benign neglect or the "purity of the product," although I'll be sure to ask about it if we speak again on the matter.
-
I was talking to Tom Paul about PV, and his recollection was that the alternate fairway on 17 (like much of that hole a design element of Hugh Alison) dropped out of use over time, and that the long-time superintendent there said that it was hard for the hoses to reach it! Apparently the green on 17 was constructed by Flynn, and combined elements of two different plans for the green that Alison had created. Alison left prior to construction.
You know, it's an interesting thing Kirk, about that alternate fairway on #17. I don't have any of the historical info other than what I've learned on here so I couldn't begin to guess why it went out of use but the short hose always seemed like a superintendent's tale to me. If it were viable they would just get a longer hose. So my assumption is it wasn't viable.
Why wouldn't it be viable?
Not knowing what the green might have looked like originally, and just going on the current green complex...all you gain by going right is a better view with your wedge or 9 iron...but you completely lose any sense of hitting into the green from the proper angle. You're coming across the ridge and slope onto a shallower (less room front to back) surface. If we can reasonably assume that only better players would take the risk of the extra carry off the tee to get up there, I think we can also reasnobly assume they would recognize the diminishing returns of doing so when a few of their well-struck wedges went spinning off the ridge and down into the garbage in front.
I bet it just fell out of use...but that bet is based on the current green configuration, which may not have been there at the time.
-
I was talking to Tom Paul about PV, and his recollection was that the alternate fairway on 17 (like much of that hole a design element of Hugh Alison) dropped out of use over time, and that the long-time superintendent there said that it was hard for the hoses to reach it! Apparently the green on 17 was constructed by Flynn, and combined elements of two different plans for the green that Alison had created. Alison left prior to construction.
You know, it's an interesting thing Kirk, about that alternate fairway on #17. I don't have any of the historical info other than what I've learned on here so I couldn't begin to guess why it went out of use but the short hose always seemed like a superintendent's tale to me. If it were viable they would just get a longer hose. So my assumption is it wasn't viable.
Why wouldn't it be viable?
Not knowing what the green might have looked like originally, and just going on the current green complex...all you gain by going right is a better view with your wedge or 9 iron...but you completely lose any sense of hitting into the green from the proper angle. You're coming across the ridge and slope onto a shallower (less room front to back) surface. If we can reasonably assume that only better players would take the risk of the extra carry off the tee to get up there, I think we can also reasnobly assume they would recognize the diminishing returns of doing so when a few of their well-struck wedges went spinning off the ridge and down into the garbage in front.
I bet it just fell out of use...but that bet is based on the current green configuration, which may not have been there at the time.
If you look at the pic on here of 17, I assumed that it was gone by the time the pic was taken. But in looking at it again, I think its there, but has a huge sandy face in front of it so it's totally blind. If that is the case, and knowing it wasn't a big landing area, maybe that is why it wasn't used more, and hence why they let it go? Too much risk, not enough reward.
-
Sean,
In the aerial in Michael's first post the right fairway is clearly still there...and it looks like the green is oriented to the left fairway so it's reasonable to think the risk/reward was just a little out of whack...would it be a better hole with it today? Can't see how as the same disproportion would apply.
-
Sean,
In the aerial in Michael's first post the right fairway is clearly still there...and it looks like the green is oriented to the left fairway so it's reasonable to think the risk/reward was just a little out of whack...would it be a better hole with it today? Can't see how as the same disproportion would apply.
I guess it wasn't as clear to me, as it is hard to determine depth and how far out that carry was. Also, it looks like you can't see much of the right fairway from the tee. Unfortunately, I have had that shot from the right side, but it wasn't on purpose.
-
i agree with Jim, I really dont think restoring the right side fairway would do anything to improve the hole.
The location of and how that green sits would not make you want to attck from the right side at all..it is hard enough from the 'head on ' approach to judge the distance...from the right you would be playing down grain so to speak..only making it more difficult to control the distance.
It is my guess that is the reason the right side fairway disappeared it was hardly ever being used!
Everytime I see pictures of the great lady, it reminds me of what a wonderful place Pine Valley is..such a remarkable course
-
I'm not sure the passive voice is the best way to describe the tree growth at PVGC. You don't fail to notice a new tree growing in the middle of a bunker. Someone at some point decided that more trees would be a good thing.
I would love to hear their reasoning. Sully gives a plausible rationale for letting the alternate fw on the 17th go. But I've never seen any account of why PV permitted so many trees to grow over so much of the course. Did they have, like many other clubs, a beautification program at one point? If so, why weren't the old bunkers graded away? Odd.
Bob
-
;D :D ???
I'm not getting any bites on my original question so will ask again for those who have played or know of what I speak...look at the old photo posted of #6 tee ...........how great would that tee shot be if it were uphill .....more akin to # 4 Perhaps it would be too repetitious , as then 4...5... and now 6 would be uphill shots off the tee
The old photo struck me as being quite uphill relative to the teeing ground that has existed for over 35 years at the "Valley " does anyone here remember an earlier day ????
-
Archie,
I think that picture was taken from the front of the tee with the camera pointing slightly down so the horizon looked higher than it actually is. I think of #6 as slightly uphill from the tee to the beginning of the fairway even still.
Would it be better if it were 15 feet lower? Not to me, it would be better if the row of spruces through the fairway were replaced by unraked sandy waste.
-
Would 6 be better if the house weren't there and the tee moved back? That would make it more up hill, no?
-
I'm not getting any bites on my original question so will ask again for those who have played or know of what I speak...look at the old photo posted of #6 tee ...........how great would that tee shot be if it were uphill
Archie
I definitely don't need 6 tee to be any lower ;) but I do think in the picture it's an optical illusion, one from the angle the photo was taken and secondly I think the larger visable area of sand face in front of the fairway makes it look higher than it really is. If you take a look at the current picture of 6 a little further down, you can see the elevations are similar.
Everyone: As for 17. Orginally the bunkering around the green complex was different. I have seen pictures where the elevation of the sand was near the elevation of the green surface not the 4-5ft below as it is now. I'm not sure how that would have affected playability from the second fairway but when that fairway was there the hole was different. I have looked at the green from the second fairway location a number of times and it is a nicer shot to the green than the uphill shot from the main fairway, however getting it up to the ideal location on the second fairway is not easy (unless of course you suck like me and don't want to go there ::).)
I also think that PV has aged and adapted over the years to what it has today. I can't say that at any point any one person made a decision to change it around and think a lot was born from necessity and the natural progression of the land from having a golf course on it. If you take the early pictures and see how much sand was there it doesn't take much to realize that it was unsustainable to keep all that sand in one place. I know how much work it is to put sand back in its current state and after a bad storms we had back hoes and skid steers in the bunkers, so it is inconcieveable how 70,80,90 years ago they could effectively put all the sand back to where it belonged. My example of 17 is probably a good one, like I said when the course was built the sand came up to the green and I'm sure it eroded away over the years to give us what we have today. Similarily the DA has changed so much from not actually being there to having the green funnel into it to its current shape. Erosion was the biggest factor in its development. Grass is a great soil stabilizer and I think that over the years they needed to (or nature took its course) and stabilized the areas, if not PV would probably have just washed away. :o
-
I recognize some of these old photos from a book PVCC produced called Pine Valley Golf Club A Chronical. It has the history, some funny stories and best of all a section called Then and Now which has photos of...you guessed it... then and now. Only now are in color and now was 1982 (copywrite date).
For those discussing the trees and lack thereof in the early pictures. here is an outtake... "With the help of the US Foresty Service, between 3,000 and 5,000 seedlings were planted each year (started in '27, finished in '32) at a cost per 1,000 seedlings of between $6 an $8. Over 70% of these successfully flourished as mentioned earlier. This further advanced Crump's desire to keep each fairway a separatre entity, lost from view from any other part of the course.... Add to that 1,000 4 to 5 inch cuttings of Holly were planted around the course, many which have grown in majestic beauty."
-
Thanks Tim. Very helpful. But I still don't understand why they didn't grade over the bunkers under all the new trees.
Bob
-
Bob,
I would guess the reason no bunkers were graded out is that I don't think any of the new seedlings that were mentioned above were ever planted inside the lines of Crump's original bunkers.
-
I recognize some of these old photos from a book PVCC produced called Pine Valley Golf Club A Chronical. It has the history, some funny stories and best of all a section called Then and Now which has photos of...you guessed it... then and now. Only now are in color and now was 1982 (copywrite date).
For those discussing the trees and lack thereof in the early pictures. here is an outtake... "With the help of the US Foresty Service, between 3,000 and 5,000 seedlings were planted each year (started in '27, finished in '32) at a cost per 1,000 seedlings of between $6 an $8. Over 70% of these successfully flourished as mentioned earlier. This further advanced Crump's desire to keep each fairway a separatre entity, lost from view from any other part of the course.... Add to that 1,000 4 to 5 inch cuttings of Holly were planted around the course, many which have grown in majestic beauty."
Tim,
Part of the problem may be that noone in 1927 -1932 envisioned the impact that mature plantings would have on the corridors of plan and view.
In addition, How do we know, "This further advanced Crump's desire to keep each fairway a separatre entity, lost from view from any other part of the course"
Did Crump ever commit those words to writing ?
If not, how can you attach any credibility to that premise ?
-
Tim,
Where did you find out about the trees planted between 1927-1932?
-
I've never had the good fortune to visit Pine Valley, so I find these pictures fascinating.
I'm truly surprised at how the course no longer has the "scruffy" pine barrens look of the old photos and has acquired a more manicured look. Some of the modern photos look as if they could have been shot at any number of courses that I have visited such as Musgrove Mill, True Blue or World Woods.
-
Here is an OLD vs NEW comparison of photos of the 10th hole... which do you prefer?
Pine Valley #10 Photo Comparison (http://greenvillegolfingsociety.com/PineValleyBeforeAfter.htm)
-
Here is an OLD vs NEW comparison of photos of the 10th hole... which do you prefer?
Pine Valley #10 Photo Comparison (http://greenvillegolfingsociety.com/PineValleyBeforeAfter.htm)
Michael,
Great presentation/comparison.
I prefer the old by a MILE
If for no other reason than when playing # 10, the wind would not be blocked by those massive trees as it is today !
-
Here is an OLD vs NEW comparison of photos of the 10th hole... which do you prefer?
Pine Valley #10 Photo Comparison (http://greenvillegolfingsociety.com/PineValleyBeforeAfter.htm)
Michael,
Great presentation/comparison.
I prefer the old by a MILE
If for no other reason than when playing # 10, the wind would not be blocked by those massive trees as it is today !
Aren't a lot of those trees gone now?
-
Sean,
NO
-
I greatly prefer the old look as well. The difference in the look is VERY dramatic. Why do you think there was such a move away from the natural presentation? The pictures of #10 don't even look like they are from the same course!
-
When I look at that old picture of #10 the only thing I am sure of is that it would look nothing like that today if left alone. There would be a natural evolution to those sand areas. Isn't today's version easier to maintain to some level of standardization?
-
??? ??? ???
Hey Pat I'm getting no bites on the tee shot on six but one of the old pictures appears to make the shot more uphill than today's drive.....I'd venture that if the tee was at the same elevation as the fifth green it would be quite a bit more fun ...and probably visually striking ,,,,any thoughts ????
-
When I look at that old picture of #10 the only thing I am sure of is that it would look nothing like that today if left alone. There would be a natural evolution to those sand areas.
How do you envision the evolution those sand areas in terms of their look today ?
How would # 10 look ? How would the rest of the golf course look ?
WHY do you state that those sand areas would evolve to look nothing like they do in the picture when ONLY 80 years have gone by ?
And, do you believe, that if the intent was to preserve that look, that the club would have FAILED to do so ?
Isn't today's version easier to maintain to some level of standardization?
I don't know.
But, I do know that the beaches at the Jersey shore seem to be pretty well maintained over the last 80+ years and they're exposed to far more erosive and disfiguring forces courtesy of Mother Nature
-
Hey Pat I'm getting no bites on the tee shot on six but one of the old pictures appears to make the shot more uphill than today's drive.....I'd venture that if the tee was at the same elevation as the fifth green it would be quite a bit more fun ...and probably visually striking ,,,,any thoughts ????
Archie,
When I first played PV in the early 60's, the tee shot at # 6 was very intimidating, the carry far more heroic than today.
The line, left of the tree/fir was prefered by most.
I agree, a lower tee box would present a more intimidating tee shot, and require a better tee shot.
While we've all benefited from modern day equipment, it has dimished the architectural quality and demands of many features and holes, and I think # 6 is one of them.
That tee shot, continued with the pattern of visually and physically difficult tee shots that golfers faced, especially golfers enjoying their first experience at PV
-
I greatly prefer the old look as well. The difference in the look is VERY dramatic.
Michael,
I agree, it's VERY, VERY dramatic, and intimidating to the golfer.
It has an untamed look to it.
Why do you think there was such a move away from the natural presentation?
My guesses are:
There was a trend toward isolation/seperation in golf and Pine Valley might have perfected the concept
Tree planting gained favor in American golf
The very name of the club, "Pine Valley" almost demands that Pine trees surround the golf course and individual holes
The pictures of #10 don't even look like they are from the same course!
Agreed.
And, I can guarantee you that the course is substantially different today, then it was in the early 1960's.
I like the 1960's and EARLIER course far more than today's version.
-
Pat,
If the intent was a wild and unmaintained look one assumes nature will have its way. How does one maintain an unmaintained look ?
/
-
Pat,
At some point you've actually got to play the golf course...and someone has to mow the grass...
Expanding the tree corridors would escalate Pine Valley visual intimidation value tremendously but letting the sand run wild would only cause headaches for everyone involved.
Archie,
Any tee shot increases in challenge when it is all of the sudden uphill, don't you think? How about letting the fairway run out into the waste in front of the 7th tee?
-
Pat,
If the intent was a wild and unmaintained look one assumes nature will have its way. How does one maintain an unmaintained look ?
Mayday,
Simple, you DON'T plant trees lining every hole and you don't permit underbrush to gain a foot hold in the expanses of sand.
It's not that difficult.
/
-
;D :D ;)
Patrick , some of the issues with trees are surely maintenance based , as without vegetation many of the exposed sand areas would be horribly impacted by the flash storms that occur in the area on many of those hot summer days. It's really painstaking work to rebuild the faces of the bunkers after one of the downpours , and for this reason the 17th hole was changed in the early 80's
The greens side bunker in front was always washing out , as the sand had been flashed almost to the top of the green in front...
the ensuing wash outs were awful and interestingly enough we lost the occasional ball under the lip of the bunker ...typically on semi skulls from the non -Crump level players ...The first time we lost one there I was totally mystified as to where the ball was , and then an older caddy ...if memory serves either Cappy (RIP) or the ubiquitous Elmer Larsen (RIP) stuck his whole arm under the lip , and produced not one, not two but three pellets. one being the one struck by my man ( thanks men)) now the grass extends almost to the ground on 17
without anchoring vegetation there could be some serous issues in getting the course open quickly after a storm..
this being said , perhaps tree cutting / clearing on the periphery would not only make the course more difficult , which would be ok here but would slow down pace of play , another consideration we need to think of
you would open up some fabulous vistas to other holes .... these old pics are fabulous , but a return to this state would be a huge huge commitment of time and resources IMHO
assume the trees are removed ....the severe slopes such as # 8 to #15 would likely need lots of native grasses to be established so as to preclude mudslides to #15 green
???? would this look out of place at the "Valley" maybe maybe not
...also let's not forget we are in NJ worse in the Pinelands of NJ , where any impacts to the natural drainage basins by an act of man may cause serious collateral damage to the defiler
most important to the discussion ....huge tree clearing seems to fly in the face of what I have always heard was George Crump's intent to design 18 holes in splendid isolation from the others
the club has cleared windrows over time to allow air to move from fairway to fairway in order to improve the turf quality and hopefully prevent some fungal diseases that are always an issue with the Poa Annua greens, which are under lots of disease pressure given the heat and humidity that exists at Pine Valley ....it is hot , sometimes oppressively so in the region as you well know
An interesting debate this , one I'm sure has been bandied about by the lords of the realm ....and by many of us
-
Patrick , some of the issues with trees are surely maintenance based , as without vegetation many of the exposed sand areas would be horribly impacted by the flash storms that occur in the area on many of those hot summer days.
Archie,
I don't agree with that.
The golf course survived for many, many, many years without substantive overgrowth, vegatative or arboreal.
If you look at chronological aerial photos from the early years through the 50's you'll notice that vast expanses of the sand areas remained. It's only in the last 50+ years that the golf course became overgrown to the extent that the overgrowth interfered with play and overtook many of the features, especially bunkers. Holes # 2, 12, 15 and 17 were perfect examples of that.
It's really painstaking work to rebuild the faces of the bunkers after one of the downpours , and for this reason the 17th hole was changed in the early 80's
The greens side bunker in front was always washing out , as the sand had been flashed almost to the top of the green in front...
the ensuing wash outs were awful and interestingly enough we lost the occasional ball under the lip of the bunker ...typically on semi skulls from the non -Crump level players ...The first time we lost one there I was totally mystified as to where the ball was , and then an older caddy ...if memory serves either Cappy (RIP) or the ubiquitous Elmer Larsen (RIP) stuck his whole arm under the lip , and produced not one, not two but three pellets. one being the one struck by my man ( thanks men)) now the grass extends almost to the ground on 17
Archie, I would examine the cause and effect.
Isn't the real culprit the deisgn of the 17th green, and its inability to deflect water away from the front of the green "?
Isn't that an inherent design defect ?
without anchoring vegetation there could be some serous issues in getting the course open quickly after a storm..
This is POROUS SANDY SOIL, not clay based soil, hence runnoff drainage would seem to be a localized issue and NOT a systemic issue.
this being said , perhaps tree cutting / clearing on the periphery would not only make the course more difficult , which would be ok here but would slow down pace of play , another consideration we need to think of
you would open up some fabulous vistas to other holes .... these old pics are fabulous , but a return to this state would be a huge huge commitment of time and resources IMHO
I don't think they'll need to run a charity ball to raise the funds ;D
assume the trees are removed ....the severe slopes such as # 8 to #15 would likely need lots of native grasses to be established so as to preclude mudslides to #15 green
If you'll look at page 63 in Geoff Shackleford's book, "The Golden Age of Golf Design", you'll see that as of 1938, that area had ample vegetation to stabilize the slope between # 8 and # 15. If you compare that photo to a current photo you'll see how invasive the trees have become.
???? would this look out of place at the "Valley" maybe maybe not
...also let's not forget we are in NJ worse in the Pinelands of NJ , where any impacts to the natural drainage basins by an act of man may cause serious collateral damage to the defiler
Archie, I think that's a stale argument.
PV has been there since 1918 and I don't think it's caused any collateral damage to the area
most important to the discussion ....huge tree clearing seems to fly in the face of what I have always heard was George Crump's intent to design 18 holes in splendid isolation from the others
I keep hearing about Crump's ALLEGED intent but have NEVER seen written evidence from Crump's hand that this was what he intended.
Whenever certain things are done, I seem to hear, "this was Crump's intent", yet to date, noone has produced written evidence to substantiate their position
the club has cleared windrows over time to allow air to move from fairway to fairway in order to improve the turf quality and hopefully prevent some fungal diseases that are always an issue with the Poa Annua greens, which are under lots of disease pressure given the heat and humidity that exists at Pine Valley ....it is hot , sometimes oppressively so in the region as you well know
I don't think there's any doubt that the trees are both an asset and a liability.
I happen to think that they're more of a liability.
And as such, would like to see the golf course selectively returned to its configuration circa 1926-1938
An interesting debate this , one I'm sure has been bandied about by the lords of the realm ....and by many of us
-
;D :D :D
Quite a fabulous look do the old photos have, and although I elucidated some arguments as to the why , they are not necessarily my arguments . Certainly the bunkering around the greens have been stabilized by vegetative growth, and having been on holes 10
& 17 in innumerable showers/ thunderstorms the washouts were real and seemed to trigger substantial change in the early in the early eightiess .....
In an interesting paradox superintendent Dick Bator exposed acres of sand that had become overgrown , particularly on holes three six and thirteen waste areas while simultaneously growing in the aforementioned grassing on #17 and the collar that now protects the "De vil's Asshole" on #10. Both in my opinion were to protect the sand walls...there was also some serious rivetting of bunkers that were thinning or washing out during heavy rains
it was way cool when someone could putt it into the DA when the pin was front right on ten green ! Still don't like the change that occurred strategically...you could almost smell the fear of the aperture when womeone was putting to that front pin and the greens were fast
Bator had real influence , the golf course re-emerged during his tenure....
As to Crump's original intent , I believe it was fairly well chronicled in both Warner Shelly's book and then by James Finegan again in his historical review....it seems consistent with all the talk of the oldest members during my tenure at the club, perhaps someone out there has better proof's ...a better question might be if his intent is completely sacrosanct as there were others involved in the construction
golf continues to be the keynote to all that is Pine Valley....not politics or money , we might be surprised what the future holds and you just might get your wish...here's to many repeat visits for all of us
-
Archie,
I played # 10 prior to the addition of the lip to divert surface water away from the DA.
Not only could you putt into it, but, balls hit out of it, onto the green, often rolled back into it.
Remember, the DA wasn't an original feature, it was added subsequently, and since the surface water from the green drained where it was located, it suffered in terms of Mother Nature and maintainance.
I don't have a problem with stabilizing a steep slope by planting grass, but, I do have a problem with allowing unbridled growth.
I recall being in the bunkers to the right of # 13 green and having my swing impeded by branches intruding into the bunkers.
Certain that was never Crump's intent.
In a thread on the 12th hole, Jamie Slonis posted chronological aerials that depicted the invasive nature of the trees and undergrowth and how they altered the look and play of the hole.
Pine Vallley suffered for years from benign neglect.
One would hope that those days are over and that many of the lost features will be restored and that the trees will be thinned out.
As to Finnegan's recollections, TEPaul and others already identified discrepencies in his accounts, so I'm not willing to take a third party's word.
Where did CRUMP write about his intentions ? That's what I want to see.
Absent Crump's written word, we have to go with what CRUMP designed and built.
His intent is clearly manifested in what he conceptualized, designed and built, not what others allege his intentions were.
Bator's contributions were significant.
As to what the future holds, no change should be contemplated without reviewing the photos circa 1920's and 1930's
-
I don't know.
But, I do know that the beaches at the Jersey shore seem to be pretty well maintained over the last 80+ years and they're exposed to far more erosive and disfiguring forces courtesy of Mother Nature
Patrick, I get what you're saying here, but is each individual dune at the jersey shore in exactly the same position it was in 80 years ago? Do they have to maintain a high quality grass surface at the Jersey shore?