A New List of Best Classic Courses Every Year

[JESII]

How is a golfer oversteping when he's in the fairway ?

Shouldn't he be entitled to an unencumbered approach shot into the green ?

Yet, at # 17, encroaching trees prevent that.

[/color]

Funny, I never had you labeled as a big proponent of the "fairness" philosophy of architecture.

Tell me something, if you're going to be behind a tree would you rather be in the fairway or the rough?

If a guy hits it in the fairway is he entitled to a perfect lie?

A golfer who misses his target by 20 yards is in no way entitled to a free and clear shot to the green. If he ends up with one, fine, but he is not owed that reward.

Which hole at Pine Valley offers a clear advantage to the player approaching the green from an outer edge of the fairway as compared to the middle of the fairway? I am asking about two approach shots of the same distance that offers a clear benefit to driving down one side or the other.

And by the way, I did not mean "baked out" when asking whether you had played the course under firm / fast conditions, simply wondering if you had. The whole experience elevates to another level.

[Patrick_Mucci]

How is a golfer oversteping when he's in the fairway ?

Shouldn't he be entitled to an unencumbered approach shot into the green ?

Yet, at # 17, encroaching trees prevent that.

[/color]

Funny, I never had you labeled as a big proponent of the "fairness" philosophy of architecture.

That's not fairness, it's the blending of the visual presentation the architect has created from the tee, combined with common sense.

Tell me something, if you're going to be behind a tree would you rather be in the fairway or the rough?

I'd rather be on the green.

If a guy hits it in the fairway is he entitled to a perfect lie?

No, I think he should have trees blocking his approach to the green.   And, if trees fail, a chain link fence will do.

A golfer who misses his target by 20 yards is in no way entitled to a free and clear shot to the green. If he ends up with one, fine, but he is not owed that reward.

That's one of the most absurd statements you could make.
Since when is a target, from 250 yards, a square yard in the middle of the fairway.  There's a reason Crump designed and differentiated fairways from non-fairways.  They were intended as prefered landing areas.

If the pin was on the far right of the green, why wouldn't you want to come in from the left side of the fairway ?
Thus moving your target zone off the tee to the far left.

Or, if the pin was cut to the far left of the green, why should the approach from the left side of the fairway be totally blocked by trees that are relatively new to the golf course ?

That you defend this absurdity, is mind boggling.

Do you NOT would oppose the narrowing of the playing corridors at ANGC  ?

Why on earth would you endorse the narrowing of the playing corridors at PV ?

Which hole at Pine Valley offers a clear advantage to the player approaching the green from an outer edge of the fairway as compared to the middle of the fairway? I am asking about two approach shots of the same distance that offers a clear benefit to driving down one side or the other.

While hole location and distance to the hole has an influence on the answer to that question, let's start with a hole we're discussing, # 12.
Given the choice of being equidistant, and in either the middle or the outer edge of the fairway, you're far better off being on the outer edge of the right side of the fairway.

If you want other holes that provide the same benefit, # 6
You're far better off being near the left edge of the fairway.
# 8 depending upon which green and the same could be said for # 9, # 11, # 13, # 15, # 16 and # 18

And by the way, I did not mean "baked out" when asking whether you had played the course under firm / fast conditions, simply wondering if you had. The whole experience elevates to another level.

Which is why a ball in the fairway shouldn't have the approach to the green blocked by invasive trees.

[JESII]

Patrick,

As I've said throughout this thread, you have not made your case proposing a tree removal program on the basis of shot options and angles. You may want to change the conversation (in fact you've already done so) to focus on whether or not trees should be in bunkers. I've already addressed that.

In your list of holes that provide a significant advantage to approaching the green from the edge of the fairway, only #16 is actually correct, and in that instance only for an extreme front left pin. On the others there's simply not a recognizable advantage to being on a particular side of the fairway.

[JESII]

Pat,

Tell me about the trees blocking a second shot on #9 at Seminole. How about the same at Hidden Creek?

[Paul_Turner]

An early example of planted trees at PVGC?  About 1916-7, the 17th:

[Mike_Cirba]

Paul,

That's an awesome picture...thanks for sharing.

I'd be curious about the left side of #12.  From aerials I've seen going til about 1930, I don't see any trees at all out to the ridgeline dropping off to the 15th below.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Tell me about the trees blocking a second shot on #9 at Seminole.

Are you trying to state that two wrongs make a right ?

There are no trees BLOCKING the second shot on #9.
There are a few tall palm trees 50-75 yards ahead of the DZ on the left corner as the hole, a par 5, begins to turn left.

A visit to Google earth will refresh your memory.

Your swing from the fairway or the leftside fairway bunkers is not impeded.  And, the trees are not immediately adjacent to the bunker forcing you to play laterally.[/color]

How about the same at Hidden Creek?

The 9th at Hidden Creek is a dogleg left, par five with woods on the left and right.   There are no trees either in bunkers or directly in front of bunkers that either impede your swing or the flight of the ball to the hole.

Likewise, a visit to Google earth will refresh your memory.

To compare the choking off of a playing corridor, as on # 17 at PV or the direct impeding of one's swing from a bunker, or the impeding of the flight of the ball toward the green from a bunker, such that the ball must be played laterally, to the situations at Seminole and Hidden Creek is absurd.

I know Roger Hansen fairly well and he hasn't informed me of any planting of trees in bunkers or immediately and directly infront of them, as is the case at PV.

You will note that # 17 at PV plays as a dogleg right, as depicted in Paul Turner's picture, thus play is up the LEFT side, which now leaves the golfer with a blocked approach shot to the green.  That certainly wasn't Crump's intent.[/color]


Paul Turner,

Your picture is interesting.

With all the talk of a dual fairway, to the right, where would it be in your photo ?

Did that right side fairway ever exist ?

Is there any photographic evidence of it ?[/color]

[redanman]

There is lots of photographic evidence of the
right hand fairway on #17 at PVGC.  

In Paul's photo (HSC PV 17) it is directly behind the whitest sandy
 area on the right side of the photo, it is higher than the bowled
left fairway.  It is directly in line with and to the right of the
flag seen on the horizon in hte distance.

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that it existed.

PJM check your e-mail

[JESII]

How is a golfer oversteping when he's in the fairway ?

Shouldn't he be entitled to an unencumbered approach shot into the green ?

Pat,

Tell me about the trees blocking a second shot on #9 at Seminole. How about the same at Hidden Creek?

In your most recent post you answered my question about trees blocking second shots in the context of bunkers. I asked it in the context fairways, as in your post which I quoted.

The second shot on #9 at Seminole for any player in the right center to left edge of the fairway (about 2/3 - 3/4 of the total width) has to negotiate over, through or around a stand of 3 or 4 very tall palm trees. I suspect (no evidence) that these trees were not planted by Donald Ross, but they add a tremendous amout of interest to the hole. As players have gotten longer and the 490 or so yards of that hole has become relatively shorter those trees have kept accuracy and ball control as preeminent requirements for success

#9 at Hidden Creek: I played there once and drove the ball down into the right corner of the fairway on this dogleg left and was forced to hit the ball over or around the trees on the corner of the dogleg to get near the green.

Both of these examples were brought up for one reason, to refute your claim that simply because you managed to drive the ball in a fairway you are "entitled to an unencumbered approach to the green". I selected those two holes because they are the only two of the courses you referrence most that I have played.

[Patrick_Mucci]

How is a golfer oversteping when he's in the fairway ?

Shouldn't he be entitled to an unencumbered approach shot into the green ?

Pat,

Tell me about the trees blocking a second shot on #9 at Seminole. How about the same at Hidden Creek?

In your most recent post you answered my question about trees blocking second shots in the context of bunkers. I asked it in the context fairways, as in your post which I quoted.

The second shot on #9 at Seminole for any player in the right center to left edge of the fairway (about 2/3 - 3/4 of the total width) has to negotiate over, through or around a stand of 3 or 4 very tall palm trees.

The second shot isn't the appoach to the green, it's the second shot on a par five to a green that's dogleged left.

Please tell me that you understand the distinction between a dogleg par 5 versus an approach shot of 140 yards from the fairway where the green is blocked by trees immediately adjacent to the green that encroach into the lines of play.[/color]

I suspect (no evidence) that these trees were not planted by Donald Ross, but they add a tremendous amout of interest to the hole. As players have gotten longer and the 490 or so yards of that hole has become relatively shorter those trees have kept accuracy and ball control as preeminent requirements for success

That's open to debate.[/color]

#9 at Hidden Creek: I played there once and drove the ball down into the right corner of the fairway on this dogleg left and was forced to hit the ball over or around the trees on the corner of the dogleg to get near the green.

That's because it's a DOGLEG LEFT on a golf course cut out of the woods, and you were hitting your second shot.

There are no trees adjacent to the green that block the approach shot.[/color]

Both of these examples were brought up for one reason, to refute your claim that simply because you managed to drive the ball in a fairway you are "entitled to an unencumbered approach to the green".

That you can't distinguish between a dogleg and a relatively straight hole, especially on a par 5 versus a par 4, the approach shot to the green on a par 4 versus the second shot on a par 5 and the invasiveness of trees immediately adjacent to a green and trees lining the fairway of a dogleg par 5 far, far removed from the green is mind boggling.

Inherent in the design principles of a dogleg, especially on par 5, is the likely possibility that the features inside of the dogleg block a direct line approach from locations in the fairway.   This is called, "design intent"

It differs from individuals, through neglect or deliberate actions, allowing trees to block off the approach to a green on a short par 4, due to the location of the trees, which are immediately adjacent to the green, as on # 17 at PV.[/color]

I selected those two holes because they are the only two of the courses you referrence most that I have played.

You may want to rethink your selection in terms of relevance and application.[/color]

[Paul_Turner]

Patrick

I don't think the alternate fairway was built at the time of the photo; it's too early.  I think CH Alison suggested the alternate fairway in the v early 20s.  The 17th green is contoured to Alison's plans but it was supposed to be oriented towards the right hand side, alternate, fairway which it isn't (not sure why that wasn't followed).

The 17th originally had huge cross bunkers for the approach carry, as in Colt's plan, which then was expanded to the sandy waste area following Crump's wishes after he died.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The 17th originally had huge cross bunkers for the approach carry, as in Colt's plan, which then was expanded to the sandy waste area following Crump's wishes after he died.

Paul Turner,

Was it a huge cross bunker, or was the green built up as an island green in the middle of the sandy expanse ?

In either event, your picture is marvelous and reveals an unencumbered green and surrounds.

The skyline nature of the 17th green is in harmony with the skyline greens on # 2 and # 9.

I wonder why Crump chose to build at least three skyline greens ?

One has to ask, were the planting of trees behind these three greens an attempt to "frame" them ?

Was the tree planting process behind these three greens a concession to the Americanization of golf courses, the need to pinpoint and define the targeted green ?

I'm curious with respect to the origins of this process behind other greens, such as # 1, # 10, # 12, # 13, # 14, # 15 and # 18.

In that section of the State, it would seem that air circulation would be paramount, and tree planting agronomically inadvisable.

[JESII]

Pat,

Interesting that you always seem to walk through the easiest door.

You made a blanket statement...a player is"entitled to an unencumbered approach to the green". I say that is total crap. When I challenged you on this you made your ridiculous chain link fence comment. Now I bring up Seminole and you say because it's a par five the player has no excuse for being blocked out by trees on a second shot towards the green. By the way, would you say those trees obstruct more or less than 50% of the lay up landing zone when the player is in the middle of the fairway trying to hit it to 75 or 80 yards?

You know what I think, instead of me having some political conflict that precludes me from bashing the golf course (as you suggested earlier in this thread) it's actually you with a political motivation that brings up irrational criticisms about the golf course. You are not intellectually honest when discussing issues at PV as compared to other courses which you may well have a political or personal bond with that influences your public commentary.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Interesting that you always seem to walk through the easiest door.

You made a blanket statement...a player is"entitled to an unencumbered approach to the green".

That's correct.

What you conveniently overlook is that it was in the specific context of the 12th and 17th holes at Pine Valley, where the golfer has an approach shot of between 160 and 40 yards.

However, I'm content to expand the statement to a universal.

The INHERENT approach shot on a par 5 is the third shot, not the second shot.

Any idiot knows that the second shots on dogleg par 5's can be obstructed by trees or other features, but, the second shot is NOT the inherent approach shot.[/color]

I say that is total crap.

That's  because you don't know what you're talking about and have confused second shots on dogleg par 5's with approach shots.[/color]

When I challenged you on this you made your ridiculous chain link fence comment.

?[/color]

Now I bring up Seminole and you say because it's a par five the player has no excuse for being blocked out by trees on a second shot towards the green.

You just don't get it.
Go back and reread my statement, which you quoted.
I specifically referenced APPROACH shots.
You continue to cite second shots on dogleg par 5's.[/color]

By the way, would you say those trees obstruct more or less than 50% of the lay up landing zone when the player is in the middle of the fairway trying to hit it to 75 or 80 yards?

What part of the word DOGLEG don't you understand ?[/color]

You know what I think, instead of me having some political conflict that precludes me from bashing the golf course (as you suggested earlier in this thread) it's actually you with a political motivation that brings up irrational criticisms about the golf course. You are not intellectually honest when discussing issues at PV as compared to other courses which you may well have a political or personal bond with that influences your public commentary.

That's absurd, and further evidence that you just don't get it.
Cite me once instance where I've been intellectually dishonest when discussing issues at PV as compared to other courses.  

The invasive trees that obscure and block the approach to
# 17 green weren't planted or left there by Crump, and should be removed.
 
Trees that have been planted or allowed to grow in bunkers, and directly adjacent to and in front of bunkers should also be removed.

That you think otherwise is a clear indication of your lack of understanding with respect to golf course architecture.[/color]

[JESII]

Boy Pat, I know my writing is not up to the standards of some on here, but your reading comprehension is lacking as well. I've not defended those trees at all, I simply argued your positions of entitlement and playing angles.

As I said earlier, you have not yet made your case of removing those trees (any at PV) for benefit of playing angles. What proof do you have that Crump intended players to approach the 17th green from the left 1/8th of that fairway when the pin is in the left 1/4 of the green? That's when the trees obstruct.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Boy Pat, I know my writing is not up to the standards of some on here, but your reading comprehension is lacking as well. I've not defended those trees at all, I simply argued your positions of entitlement and playing angles.

As I said earlier, you have not yet made your case of removing those trees (any at PV) for benefit of playing angles.

I think I've made it, but, I don't think you've comprehended it.[/color]

What proof do you have that Crump intended players to approach the 17th green from the left 1/8th of that fairway when the pin is in the left 1/4 of the green?

Photographic evidence from 1917 to 1938 is a good start.

If he had wanted that approach blocked, he'd have either done it or directed it.

It's clear that he did neither.[/color]

That's when the trees obstruct.

Here's where you really fail to understand the situation.

The trees obstruct the approach from the left side ALL OF THE TIME.  Not just when the hole location is to the left.

The left side fairway slopes in such a way as to promote a fade/slice, which means that the average golfer playing from the left side will fade/slice their approach shot.

With the green being the second smallest on the golf course, about 1/3 the size of the second and eighteenth greens, how can a golfer aim into the trees ?  Or, how can the average golfer hit a draw/hook off that lie ?  Remember too, it's an uphill lie to an uphill green of about 3,975 Sq Ft.

At 3,975, with trees blocking the left side of the green, the practical square footage for an approach from the left is probably 2/3 to 1/2 that area.   And, those trees preclude the execution of a fade-slice, the most common shot in golf, from a lie that promotes a fade-slice.

The tee shot aligns to the left with the right side being semi-blind, hence, the left side of the fairway appears to be the prefered side to aim at for the golfer standing on the tee.

When you combine all of the factors involved in playing the hole, you can't support the blocking off of the green from left side approaches, its gimmickie golf, and not what Crump or any prudent architect would create.[/color]

[JESII]

So your position is that Crump's intentions were to allow the golfer to hit his tee ball into the left corner of the fairway with a left pin and be able to slice his second shot up onto the green from there simply because the ground slopes from left to right. Do I have that right?

Crump was trying to build a golf course that was an extreme challenge to the top players in the world. He was not trying to let an average player hit a mediocre tee shot and be able to easily play onto the green. That was his intent. Unfortunately Crump did not live long enough to work and tweek the golf course for decades the way Ross did at Pinehurst and the Fownes family did at Oakmont so it was left to his successors at Pine Valley to guide the courses evolution.

Again, do I think any of the trees you have railed against make the specific holes we've discussed better? No, but that does not change the fact that the holes were not intended to be played the way you're suggesting they were, and thus your argument fails. I do not need to go look at those aerials again, they are very clear. What is not clear is your premise that Crump desired to encourage....

the execution of a fade-slice, the most common shot in golf, from a lie that promotes a fade-slice.

That comment alone identifies your understanding of Crump's intent at Pine Valley.

[Patrick_Mucci]

So your position is that Crump's intentions were to allow the golfer to hit his tee ball into the left corner of the fairway with a left pin and be able to slice his second shot up onto the green from there simply because the ground slopes from left to right. Do I have that right?

Absolutely.

Didn't you take the time to study and analyze the pictures posted above, in this thread ?

What does that look like to you ?

It's pretty clear that the approach shot from the fairway was to be unobstructed.

Did you play the hole in the 60's and 70's when it wasn't obstructed ?

Did you view the photos from 1917 to 1938 and beyond, when it wasn't obstructed ?

How on earth can you defend an obstruction of the green which only occured in the last 10-20 years ?  And, understanding that, how can you claim it was Crump's intention ?
Or did Crump's ghost visit you and indicate that the way the hole played for the first 70 years wasn't really the way he intended it to be played ?

Firstly, it's not the left corner of the fairway, it's the left side of the fairway where the ground slopes high left to low right, and, that's where the tee faces, and, the fairway to the right is blind.  

Secondly, good players or "championship" players fade the ball, they don't slice it.

Hitting a fade from the sloping left side of the fairway is the smart shot, as opposed to trying to hook the ball off of that lie.

In addition, the green is not visible from the tee,  but rather than take my word for it, look at the pictures on pages 228-229 in Finegan's.
"Pine Valley Golf Club"

Crump was trying to build a golf course that was an extreme challenge to the top players in the world. He was not trying to let an average player hit a mediocre tee shot and be able to easily play onto the green. That was his intent.

You don't know what you're talking about.

How can you claim that a tee shot hit into the left side of the fairway and close to the green is a mediocre tee shot ?
That's patently absurd.  Especially in light of the orientation of the green and the severe back to front slope.

I'd rather hit a fade into that green then a draw.

# 17 would be better classified as a "sporty" hole, not a "championship" hole.   One of the beauties of PV is the variety, the mixture of short, sporty holes, like # 8 and #12 and # 17, with the more demanding holes.

Unfortunately Crump did not live long enough to work and tweek the golf course for decades the way Ross did at Pinehurst and the Fownes family did at Oakmont so it was left to his successors at Pine Valley to guide the courses evolution.

There is NO record or indication that Crump would have blocked off approach shots to greens by planting trees in bunkers, directly in front of bunkers or directly adjacent to and in front of greens.  That's your unsubstantiated and delusional opinion.

I'm only slightly familiar with Pinehurst # 2 and Oakmont and I don't recall either Ross or Fownes planting trees in bunkers, directly in front of bunkers or immediately adjacent to and in front of greens, effectively blocking approaches from the fairway.

How do you account for the fact that there were no trees blocking the 17th green in the 60's and 70's ?

40-50 years is a lot of time when it comes to the growth rate of pines.

Again, do I think any of the trees you have railed against make the specific holes we've discussed better? No,

Try to follow me, this is a twelve step program.

After a zillion posts you finally CONCEDE that the trees don't make the holes better.

Do they make them worse, or are they "playable neutral" ?

Does a golfer, in the left side of the fairway, have his approach to the green blocked by the trees ?

How do you reconcile the obvious answer with the picture posted by Paul Turner ?

but that does not change the fact that the holes were not intended to be played the way you're suggesting they were, and thus your argument fails.

More absurd logic from you.

# 17 was always intended to play from the tee to the fairway with the left side of the fairway being the area that the tee pointed to, and the side of the fairway that was visible.

Understanding the punitive nature of the areas immediately removed from the fairways at Pine Valley, why would an intelligent golfer risk an ill defined, if not blind tee shot, in favor of a clear tee shot to the left side of the fairway ?

This has to be one of the best examples of your convoluted logic.

I do not need to go look at those aerials again, they are very clear.

Obviously, they're not clear enough.
Look at the ground level photos taken from the 17th tee in Finegan's "Pine Valley Golf Club", perhaps those photos can explain in a quick glance what your mind can't absorb in this discussion.

What is not clear is your premise that Crump desired to encourage....

the execution of a fade-slice, the most common shot in golf, from a lie that promotes a fade-slice.

That comment alone identifies your understanding of Crump's intent at Pine Valley.


It's not that he encouraged it, that's what the landform that he chose to design and construct his fairway on presented to the golfer.   It's REALITY.   A ball on a high left to low right slope will fade/slice.   If he didn't want that configuration and that result, he would have altered it by altering the slope of the fairway.   But, he didn't did he.  So we have to conclude that that's the way he wanted it.  Is that so hard for you to understand ?

I hate to repeat myself, but, you just don't get it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

Please address the issue of why the trees immediately adjacent to, and in front of the 17th green didn't block the approach shot to that green from the left side of the fairway in the 60's and 70's, and why there were no trees to block the approach to that green from 1917 until more recently ?

[JESII]

Pat,

I've covered the tree issue several times through this thread. My position is that the course would improve aesthetically with tree removal to the outer edges of all bunker complexes. This will make several holes easier, not necessarily better, but the visuals will improve significantly.

Tell me something, what do you think Crump's intentions were for green speeds? How fast do you think greens were in his day in terms of stimpmeter readings? How fast are they typically at Pine Valley when you play there? Do you think the 2nd green was designed with todays green speeds in mind? How about 3, or 5, or 15?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Pat,

I've covered the tree issue several times through this thread. My position is that the course would improve aesthetically with tree removal to the outer edges of all bunker complexes. This will make several holes easier, not necessarily better, but the visuals will improve significantly.

You're starting to make progress  [/color]

Tell me something, what do you think Crump's intentions were for green speeds?

Probably at speeds that were considered the norm for "Championship" play.

But, I believe Crump was keenly aware of the agronomic difficulties and the unusual micro climate that was counter to high green speeds.   Survival takes precedence over ambition.[/color]

How fast do you think greens were in his day in terms of stimpmeter readings?

Much slower, although, this summer PV's green were barely putting at 6 when they were open.[/color]

How fast are they typically at Pine Valley when you play there?

I don't think that there is a typical speed.
I think the green speeds are highly dependent upon several components.   Weather, agronomic conditions and club events, with Mother Nature taking priority.  I've played them when they've been what I would consider excessively fast, and I've played them when they've been very slow and I've played them at all the speeds in between.[/color]

Do you think the 2nd green was designed with todays green speeds in mind?

NO[/color]

How about 3, or 5, or 15?

NO.

I think the very high speeds on those sloped greens bring the golf course closer to goofy golf and well beyond
"Championship" golf.[/color]

[JESII]

OK Pat, back to this one.

I played Pine Valley yesterday and as you can imagine I was very interested in the specific details you and I (as well as Mike Cirba but he ducked out awful quick  ) spent a few days discussing based on our memories. I'll try to address as much of it as possible here.


#17 has two sets of (one or two) trees that could be considered impediments to approach shots from the fairway. The first set is just about at the end of the fairway, maybe 70 yards from the green. The second set is the one you referrenced throughout this thread, it is immediately adjacent to the green on the left. The trees at the end of the fairway are relatively small by comparison to the one(s) next to the green, they're actually a different type of tree. The tee does not in any way align the player to the left side, if anything it aligns you up the right center. I would call it the center, but at the very beginning of the fairway (about 140 from the tee) its actually the right side of it. The cant of the fairway you referrenced as steering balls to that left side is only in the right half or two thirds of the fairway, the left one third to half is sloped to the right so as to steer balls back down to the center. I'm really not sure how you can position your argument with the following two points; the fairway slopes to the left which forces otherwise good shots over behind the trees, and at the same time say "most players slice the ball especially with it below their feet as it is when you're behind those trees". That's not really my point here.

My point is to let you know that the only time either of those sets of trees impedes upon a players shot when he is in the fairway is when he is in the furthest left 5-7 yards of the fairway for the last 30 - 40 yards of the fairway, and aiming for the left 1/4 of the green. In other words, if you hit the 200 yards off the tee and are 1 foot from the left rough you will have no tree issues all the way up to the left edge of the green. At 220-260 from the tee and in the left one foot of fairway you will have a two sets of trees in your way to that left 1/4 of the green, the first set is not really an issue unless you have driven way up to the end of the fairway because of their height, most any player can hit it over those trees, especially from the uphill lie given. The greenside trees could very well block a shot coming down on that line (to the left 1/4 of the green).

You will see the next time you're there that while these trees may not have been on Crump's planting list (none of us know for sure due to the circumstances of his death), but they certainly do not overly impede on the golf course. The one thing I really noticed was the lack of incentive for a player with the ability to carry the ball 215 yards or so to actually take on the bunkers on the right for the benefit of a more level approach to the green. There is a really nice looking perch in that right side of the fairway that would be a great spot to play from if the risks of being in the short or long bunker or the trees on the right were more in balance with the rewards. Then again, maybe they are when the greens have a little bounce and some speed, those left corner pins are very difficult to look at from the middle/bottom of the fairway and would be much more accessible from the right perch. Anyway, pay close attention the next time you're there, I think you memory will change a bit.

Now, to give credit where due, on #12 we played the right hand tee and I really wanted to take a shot at the green. I cannot very well hit a running hook so my only approach was going to be a high drive at the front corner of the green, but the fact that I could not see anything left too much uncertainty and I hit a 3 wood out to the right and pitched on. Now remember, that's from the forward right tee, and the left tee is the primary championship tee, and the guys told me they rebuilt the left hand tee this year so as to make it the primary tee for regular play as well. From the left tee you cannot see the green very well even if the trees are removed all the way to the crest of the ridge line (which is only a couple of yards outside of the left edge of the bunkers). Removing those trees would certainly be a visual enhancement (plus the fact that there are about 8 bunkers all through there), but you would not gain the strategic visual effect of being able to see the green.

[JESII]

Just out of curiosity, does the tree to the left of #14 at Augusta effect (or ever deflect) balls that would otherwise land on the green?