Two trees that always bothered me are the two

[Patrick_Mucci]

cedar trees to the right side of # 15 fairway at Pine Valley about 60 yards short of the green.

The left side of the narrowed fairway is laced with ominous bunkers.

The right side falls off from the elevated fairway with about 20 yards of rough on a hillside that continues to slope away from the fairway above.

Those two trees block second shots hit short and right of the green, which is most shots since reaching the green in two isn't realistic.

I noticed that those trees weren't there in 1940.
Instead, it looks like two bunkers were in their place.

It would seem like a good idea to remove those cedars and replace them with bunkering on the right side, in the fall off area, that's similar to bunkering on the left side of the fairway.

The look from the DZ would be incredibly intimidating.

Second shot's hit right would find the bunker, but leave the golfer with a difficult 60 yard approach, versus an approach that's currently blocked by the two cedars.

I'd like to hear what Archie Struthers, Jamie Slonis, Jim Sullivan and others who have played the course think of the concept.

But, first, look at HistoricAerials.com circa 1940 and then tell me what you think.

[Malcolm Mckinnon]

Pat,

I don't know why but I have ended up down there staring at those cedars between myself and the green on 15 every time.

Kind of like the left hand rough on the 8th hole at Myopia Hunt. You are destined to end up there eventually so you might as well just get it over with.

Malcolm

[JESII]

Pat,

I wonder if you can find a picture from the 80's or 90's. I'm certan those two trees had a big brother that was right near the green on that side. I think it came out 5 or 8 years ago.

With that slope down to the right in the area you describe I've always thought the hole would improve if it were just open and maintained as fairly short grass so the ball can bounce down and away a bit...I think the bunkers you describe would look artificial whereas every other bunker on the course looks like they were there.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I wonder if you can find a picture from the 80's or 90's. I'm certan those two trees had a big brother that was right near the green on that side. I think it came out 5 or 8 years ago.

Jim,

Yes, there was another tree closer to the green, on the same side.
It would seem to make sense that if it was removed, that the other two should be removed.

While I agree that removing the trees and returning the area to it's natural state would be best, I think adding bunkers to that area is being contemplated.  Early photos, from the 40's indicate that two (2) bunkers were beneath the fairway shelf in that area.

With that slope down to the right in the area you describe I've always thought the hole would improve if it were just open and maintained as fairly short grass so the ball can bounce down and away a bit...Agree.

I think the bunkers you describe would look artificial whereas every other bunker on the course looks like they were there.

If bunkers inserted in that area duplicated those in 1940, I think it would enhance the hole.
Duplicating on the right side, what's on the left side, would appear to be excessive.

Time will tell.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

What's always puzzled me is how memberships ignore detailed photographic evidence regarding their architectural history.

GCGC does it, PV does it and it astounds me.

These clubs have such a wonderful array of aerial and ground level photos, yet, they've allowed time and subsequent human influence to alter their golf courses.

ETERNAL VIGILANCE IS THE PRICE OF GREATNESS.

It would be terrific if some, or all, of these clubs would review their architectural, photo archives, and develop master plans to preserve or restore the intended architectural features, while at the same time ridding themselves of trees and underbrush that have become invasive due to benign neglect.

# 15 is a great example and HistoricAerials.com a GREAT source or reference.

[JSlonis]

The compare feature on HistoricAerials where you can slide between views from different eras is an invaluable tool.  The encroachment of trees over time becomes strikingly clear.

I forget how I stumbled across that site years ago, but I've been referencing it ever since.

[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

.

Jim,

Yes, there was another tree closer to the green, on the same side.
It would seem to make sense that if it was removed, that the other two should be removed.

While I agree that removing the trees and returning the area to it's natural state would be best, I think adding bunkers to that area is being contemplated.  Early photos, from the 40's indicate that two (2) bunkers were beneath the fairway shelf in that area.

With that slope down to the right in the area you describe I've always thought the hole would improve if it were just open and maintained as fairly short grass so the ball can bounce down and away a bit...Agree.

I think the bunkers you describe would look artificial whereas every other bunker on the course looks like they were there.

If bunkers inserted in that area duplicated those in 1940, I think it would enhance the hole.
Duplicating on the right side, what's on the left side, would appear to be excessive.

Time will tell.

I took the one nearer the green out and I believe there was another really small one too that came out at the same time. It's been a long time but I believe the others were earmarked to come out also and actually thought they were gone.....

I've seen pictures of the 'bunker's that were below that area and I don't think they were meant to be bunkers but were formed either from the lack of irrigation/water down there or from wear (or a combo of both)

[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

Jim,

What's always puzzled me is how memberships ignore detailed photographic evidence regarding their architectural history.

GCGC does it, PV does it and it astounds me.

These clubs have such a wonderful array of aerial and ground level photos, yet, they've allowed time and subsequent human influence to alter their golf courses.

ETERNAL VIGILANCE IS THE PRICE OF GREATNESS.

It would be terrific if some, or all, of these clubs would review their architectural, photo archives, and develop master plans to preserve or restore the intended architectural features, while at the same time ridding themselves of trees and underbrush that have become invasive due to benign neglect.

# 15 is a great example and HistoricAerials.com a GREAT source or reference.

While I agree to a point - on old courses that have continually matured, at what point do you rewind back to? What is the true PV? Is it the open beach that was there in the 20s, patchy brush/scrub pine of the 40s, semi mature pines/nasty scrub of the 60s (and 10s collar falling into the DA), the improved conditions that came in the 80s or todays course? Will this site be looking back in 50 years and saying that PV should return to the condition it was in in 2011.....

My point being that yes, courses soften over the years, grow in, lose/gain features etc but golf courses are constantly evolving, be it for maintenance (making it easier), better conditioning, erosion control (especially in PVs case), bigger, longer equipment etc etc I agree that sometimes at courses worthwhile features disappear, which is bad, and there were times where the latest idea prevails (how many pine trees were planted on courses in the 60s and 70s...) but its very difficult to pick a time on a classic courses and say that that certain point in time was the time it was how it should be. I think modern courses are a little more forgiving as people are more aware of architecture and designers are more protective of their designs.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

What's always puzzled me is how memberships ignore detailed photographic evidence regarding their architectural history.

GCGC does it, PV does it and it astounds me.

These clubs have such a wonderful array of aerial and ground level photos, yet, they've allowed time and subsequent human influence to alter their golf courses.

ETERNAL VIGILANCE IS THE PRICE OF GREATNESS.

It would be terrific if some, or all, of these clubs would review their architectural, photo archives, and develop master plans to preserve or restore the intended architectural features, while at the same time ridding themselves of trees and underbrush that have become invasive due to benign neglect.

# 15 is a great example and HistoricAerials.com a GREAT source or reference.

Alan,

Thanks for your response and input.

With respect to the two bunkers just below the fairway shelf on the right, they appear too symetrical and too conveniently positioned to be the product of wear and tear, especially when there was no cart traffic circa 1941.


While I agree to a point - on old courses that have continually matured, at what point do you rewind back to? What is the true PV? Is it the open beach that was there in the 20s, patchy brush/scrub pine of the 40s, semi mature pines/nasty scrub of the 60s (and 10s collar falling into the DA), the improved conditions that came in the 80s or todays course? Will this site be looking back in 50 years and saying that PV should return to the condition it was in in 2011.....

Tom MacWood always felt that it should be the architectural high water mark.
While I agree in theory, in practice, how do you determine that ?

To a degree, it requires one to have played the course over a long period of time.
Someone can't be expected to evaluated the playing characteristics of a feature if they've never played the course when that feature existed, or when they played the course and the feature didn't exist.  There has to be a reasonable basis for comparison.  A data base in which comparisons can be made.  While the photographic evidence is very helpful, it may not convey all of the architectural qualities of the features that impact play. 
Hence, one would think a combination would be most apt.

I do recall, in the 50's and early 60's that PV was refered to as having vast sandy areas/bunkers.
My earliest experience at PV is in 1964.  Hence, my frame of reference, from a playing and viewing perspective is 1964.
Trees were far less invasive and the bunkered areas far more extensive.
Just go to HistoricAerials.com and look at # 12 and # 13 and see how great they looked and played.
Look at the bunkers to the right of # 13 green.
On subsequent visits, trees were growing IN those bunkers and tree branches intruded into those bunkers, restricting the golfer's swing.
And, this wasn't an isolated instance, it had become systemic.
Entire Bunkers were engulphed by the trees and shrubs, and an enormous number of bunkers had invasive branches intruding into them restricting the golfer's swing. 

So, at the very least, all of those trees and tree limbs should be eliminated, along with the brush that covers bunkers and impedes sight lines.



My point being that yes, courses soften over the years, grow in, lose/gain features etc but golf courses are constantly evolving, be it for maintenance (making it easier), better conditioning, erosion control (especially in PVs case), bigger, longer equipment etc etc I agree that sometimes at courses worthwhile features disappear, which is bad, and there were times where the latest idea prevails (how many pine trees were planted on courses in the 60s and 70s...) but its very difficult to pick a time on a classic courses and say that that certain point in time was the time it was how it should be.

I agree, but, there should be a minimum performance standard, irrespective of the year you might target as a restoration goal.

For an example, the intrusion of trees into bunkers is something that could be cured in a month, IF the club was interested in restoring those features, Unfortunately, many seem at the perimeter or flanks of the playing corridors.   Remember too, that club leaderships, now matter how capable, aren't always focused on the architecture and often they aren't focused on the history of the architecture and how it relates to the architectural configuration of today's course.

# 13 might be a good example.
At one time the trees were terribly invasive to the greenside bunker/s on the right and rear.
Then, they were removed/pruned, but, they still remain an impediment to swinging a club.
They've also shrunk over the years, but, you wouldn't know that unless you studied them or did an overlay.

I want to thank Jamie Slonis for bringing HistoricAerials.com to our attention.
I believe he introduced it on a thread about # 12 at PV and the bunker loss on the left side of # 12.

Please view HA.com and look at # 12 when I first played it, between, 1963 and 1965.

Look at what a much better hole it was, visually and play wise.
Ditto # 13.

It's clear, in the play of PV, that it would be enhanced with more tree removal, especially where the trees are invasive to features such as bunkers or sight lines such as on # 12.

With respect to GCGC, I always felt that 1936 was an ideal year for several reasons.
1.....  GCGC has an abundance of aerial and ground level photos circa 1936
2.....  The U.S. Amateur was held at GCGC that year.
3....   The 7th and 12th holes were significantly better holes in 1936.

I think modern courses are a little more forgiving as people are more aware of architecture and designers are more protective of their designs.
Alan, that's an interesting issue.

I wonder, at the death of Nicklaus, Dye, Doak, Coore & Crenshaw and others, if changes to their courses will increase.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Alan,

I played # 10 before the collar was placed around the rim of the DA.

It was a far more diabolical bunker as the putting surface came right down to just above the lip and balls hit, just out, onto the green, would roll back down the slope of the putting green into the bunker, usually into the golfer's footprints.