News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Lester George

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why aren't there more holes with
« Reply #50 on: January 23, 2008, 06:53:59 PM »
Thanks Tom.

Lester

Doug Wright

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why aren't there more holes with
« Reply #51 on: January 23, 2008, 07:13:02 PM »
Who says the Search function doesn't work? Here is a thread from 2002 on this topic:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=1897;start=msg36668#msg36668

This thread includes the following statement regarding Pine Valley #9 from TE Paul:

"How and why Pine Valley's right #9 green came into being is unusual and interesting.

The original (Crump's #9 left) was a green whose surface contour and slope were not working well for play and the membership. The original left green was longer than the present left with a very long upslope (considered mostly unpinnable) with a very shallow back tier. It was considered a very severe two tier green. It was apparenly difficult to get balls up the front upslope and hold them on the back tier and balls were running over the green down towards the 18th fairway. Good players apparently thought it best to lay up in front of the green and play for a five.

C.H. Alison recommended and designed the right alternate green as he claimed it was more cost effective than redesigning and rebuilding the original and also that the membership could have the convenience of a green in play when the right alternate was being built.

This recommendation was approved but apparently the right alternate was constructed later to Alison's design specs probably by William Flynn and George Thomas!

Eventually the left original was redesigned and rebuilt by Perry Maxwell who also redesigned and rebuilt original left #8 but not to Alison's approved plans but to his own!

Interestingly, Crump was the first to recognize that the original left #9 was not working well and had very definite plans to rework the whole hole adding considerable length to it, making it play as a bit of a dogleg left and to rebuilt the severe green.

One wonders how he could have added considerable length to #9. That may have been contingent on his plans to make #7 play more as a double dogleg hole (certainly using Hell's half acre) but playing the second shot well out to the right with the left side of the landing area over Hell's Half acre turned into more rough ground and wasty bunkering. The ideal area then to approach the green on #7 would have been well out to the right and might explain the right orientation of the present green better."

There's more interesting stuff on this old thread so read on...
Twitter: @Deneuchre

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why aren't there more holes with
« Reply #52 on: January 23, 2008, 09:44:58 PM »
SL and Mark,

Fazio's routing at WW must be really confusing.  The hole in question is #12, as I pictured above.  A long par 4.  Not a par 5 or #8.  Here'a a link to their course map.  

http://www.worldwoods.com/fw/main/default.asp?DocID=166

The two greens were still maintained last year when I was there.  Clearly the left green was way inferior to the right green, so I could understand if they did away with the left green.

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why aren't there more holes with
« Reply #53 on: January 24, 2008, 01:21:19 PM »
Isn't it true that a single green with 7000 sf would have more pinnable area than two separate greens with 3500 sf each?  If so durability might be a factor in addition to cost.

Mike

Also, I liked the left green at WW Pine Barrens as it was sited in a natural saddle and provided a visual respite from the balance of the course.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2008, 01:22:38 PM by Michael_Hendren »
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....