Could Pine Valley survive, untouched if it were a typical local club ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I'm not going to sit here and argue with you about this endlessly. In my opinion, there is no reason at all to restore that "pimple" the way it was originally but there certainly could be a good reason to do what it is very clear Crump intended to do once HE removed that pimple because the documentation is really excellent that he considered it to be TEMPORARY!

One of the problems Pine Valley may have in this way is there's a lot of really excellent documentation about other things on other holes that Crump intended to do but never did because he died so suddenly.

Should the club consider doing those other things too? On at least one hole I think there is no question at all but that they should, particularly since Crump got about halfway through it on one hole and then suddenly he was gone.

[TEPaul]

"That's not true.
The 2nd green at PV has slopes far steeper than those found on that mound."


Pat:

Again, that is something else I'm not going to sit here and argue with you about endlessly. Firstly, that is probably not even close to the case or the truth, and secondly just the steepness of a slope is NOT the ONLY deal or the ONLY problem with mowing greenspace, there are a few other potential problems and factors to deal with (some of which we just learned this last weekend at Shinnecock!).

I don't think you want to get into that modus that Tom MacWood and David Moriarty have on here about the histories of a few clubs where it seems they think if they just repeat something that isn't close to the truth enough times people might begin to feel it actually could be or is the truth! 

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Mowing steep slopes or dramatic contours is the ONLY maintainance consideration other than the steep falloffs at the perimeter.

[JESII]

I'mnot sure what QUIRK really means, but having it for the sake of having it doesnot seem to make sense.

If the PIMPLE added to the overall quality of the hole or the course they could figure out a way to maintain it, I just don't see how it could add. The 18th green is, admitedly, less dramatic than most of the others, but for some reason it works pretty well on that hole. Keep in mind Pat that the approach to the 18th is every bit as severe as that of the second prior to the green surface. The green surface irself is far from flat, with about 6 feet of elevation change from the front right to the back left and a significant front to back slope for the first 12 - 15 yards of the green.

You are correct that a large percentage of shots onto the green gather in a general area in the center to right center, but when the hole is not there, your putt is not uneventful...

I am not suggesting the a ridge or spine would not add value, but I like the current green as it is more than I like the idea of speculatively creating a feature the original designer wrote about maybe adding.

[archie_struthers]

 


Could it survive ...given the quality absolutely ...but surely it would be different as the question is framed ...how about the inclusion of women

Certainly Burning Tree (washington dc)   and Squires  (Phillly) aren't typical local clubs

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Mowing steep slopes or dramatic contours is the ONLY maintainance consideration."

Patrick:

But it is a really important consideration unless one doesn't care about the mowing and agronomic problems it can create.

To me this is the very heart of many of the management problems with clubs and maintenance and particularly club committees and maintenance depts----eg clubs and committees start asking maintenance depts to do things that and with which they do not understand well enough the maintenance problems involved.

I have actually heard some committees say to maintenance depts that they don't want to hear about or care about the maintenance problems involved in something they demand---they just want it anyway. Anyone with half a mind and a modicum of objectivity ought to be able to extrapolate that this is a potential prescription for real problems or even disaster in the desired product or result. It's insanity really!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The precise configuration and dimensions of the mound are immaterial.

What is critical is the concept of the mound within the green.

Crump wanted to create a strategic feature that greatly influenced play, on the approach, recovery and putt.

That mound could be recreated, if not precisely to its original configuration, "functionally" to its original intent.

It would be a spectacular addition.

[JESII]

Pat,

I think the mound within the eigth green at Hidden Creek is pretty cool, but #18 at Pine Valley is a long, difficult hole already. I cannot see how a mound would improve the quality of the hole. If Crumps written intent was to remove it, what makes you so positive it would be an improvement to restore it?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I think the mound within the eigth green at Hidden Creek is pretty cool, but #18 at Pine Valley is a long, difficult hole already.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

# 18 at PV is not a long, difficult hole.
It plays from 410-428 from the original tees
You hit from a highly elevated tee, down to a running fairway that's 50 yards wide, leaving you a mid to short iron into the 11,070 sq/ft punchbowl green.

The hi-tech/distance problem forced PV to create a new back tee at an awkward angle, right and below the original tee, which extends the hole back a considerable distance to present a challenge for ONLY the very best players (2 handicap and below)

The green remains a self correcting feature due to its punchbowl nature.
Thus inaccurate and marginally hit approaches are funneled toward the intended target, the hole. 

It was this self correcting-self forgiving feature that was countered by the existance of the mound

Crump understood what he was doing when he conceived, designed and built that mound, which segmented the green, effectively into quadrants.

Crump's mound created a hugely strategic feature, one that had to be interfaced with on the approach, recovery or putts.

Today, there is NO strategic presence within the putting surface.

I cannot see how a mound would improve the quality of the hole.


I can only alot so much of my time to the Philadelphia contingent on GCA.com.
If I work with you, TEPaul and Wayno will have to give up some of their time.

Think about what you just said.
Look at the picture of the mound and try to visualize the added strategy it brings to the hole.
It's undeniable.

If Crumps written intent was to remove it, what makes you so positive it would be an improvement to restore it ?

I don't believe that Crump committed anything to writing, so I don't know where you're coming up with Crump's "written intent"

And, that's not quite what Crump is ALLEGED to have said.

There's NO doubt that he wanted an internal feature (mound/ridge/spine) to create additional strategy on that hole, the finishing hole.

The mound was there for a good ten years before JAB had it removed.

Crump is said to have stated, and it's collaborated by two sources, that he INTENTED for the green to have a dramatic contour, be it a mound, ridge or spine.

His intention is easy to understand in the context of the substantive additional strategy
that feature would add to the hole.

You, like your other Philly contingent, tend to blindly go with the party line, but, in this case, Crump himself clearly stated that HE WANTED AN INTERNAL FEATURE WITHIN THAT GREEN.

Since the mound was conceived of, designed and built by Crump, and remained during Crump's life, it would seem that the prudent path to follow would be a sympathetic restoration.

By that I mean creating a significant center green feature that would function as Crump intended.

The club has the photos, the written summary of two third parties and the funds to undertake the work.

The question is, do they have the understanding and will to undertake the work ?

[archie_struthers]

 

Pine Valley isn't untouched by new ideas ...as the bunkers on # 4 and # 9 are quite new ...and somewhat controversial


how about the alternate green on #8  ...pretty much mandated by wear and tear issues.....

I think the new tees are outstanding / with the possible exception of #14 ...they let the big guys swing away a little more ....would love to see a new tee on #17 ...but we've got some railroad tracks to deal with 

As i've often stated it's such a great gofl course it's hard to pick at ... nothing is perfect ...but the powers that be have been pretty good stewards of this beauty!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Archie & TEPaul,

I understand why the second green was created on # 8, but, remind me why the second green was created on # 9

[Chip Gaskins]

is Fazio employed by the club presently to "help out"?  honest question

[TEPaul]

"Archie & TEPaul,
I understand why the second green was created on # 8, but, remind me why the second green was created on # 9"

Pat:

It's kind of a long and involved story. It's in the back pages somewhere. If you can't find it I'll give you the details when I get back.

Fazio isn't employed by the club---he's a member of the club and their current architectural adviser.

[JESII]

Pat,

I am surprised that, in the context of this thread, you would say #18 is not a long hole. How many times have you hit a wedge into the hole? I played three rounds there recently and hit three good drives and hit the green three times...with a 5, 6 and 7 iron. Those yardages represent a hole somewhere from 440 - 480 in its playing yardage. The fairway is only a running fairway if you hit a low fade that carries well up into it. I would wager that the majority (vast majority) of players playing what is for them the appropriate tee do not carry their tee shots over the slight crest about 1/4 of the way into the fairway to capitalize on your "running fairway". Couple that fact with a 20 foot climb fronted by water and very severe bunkers and it is interesting to me that you would suggest the hole is so easy.

By the way, you seem to suggest that balls gathering to the center / right-center of the green are gathering towards the target...what about the 80% of the time the the hole is somewhere else.

In my opinion, the most difficult and interesting approach to a particular hole location on the course is to #1 with a right side pin just beyond the center of the green. The second most difficult and interesting shot, to me, is when the hole on #18 is short right...and that is because of the already in lace interesting features on and around the green...namely the significant front to back slope on the first third of the green that would need to be negotiated to get the ball inside of 20 feet...on this very simple hole...

[Patrick_Mucci]

I am surprised that, in the context of this thread, you would say #18 is not a long hole.


At 410-428 from a tee 50 feet above the fairway, why would you classify the hole as long ?
I indicated that it played long from the new tee to the lower right of the original teeing complext

How many times have you hit a wedge into the hole? I played three rounds there recently and hit three good drives and hit the green three times...with a 5, 6 and 7 iron.
From which tee did you play ?

Those yardages represent a hole somewhere from 440 - 480 in its playing yardage.


Only if you played from the new back tee to the lower right of the original tee complex.

The fairway is only a running fairway if you hit a low fade that carries well up into it.

That's not true if you play from the original tee complex.
One of my disappointments with the new back tee is that it thwarts some of the architectural influence created by a fairway that runs high left to low right, when the angle of the tee shot is changed, such that you're hitting into the slope instead of along with it.

I would wager that the majority (vast majority) of players playing what is for them the appropriate tee do not carry their tee shots over the slight crest about 1/4 of the way into the fairway to capitalize on your "running fairway".

Let's not add qualifiers like "appropriate" tee.
Let's reference the hole from the tee complex in existance prior to the new lower right back tee.

Couple that fact with a 20 foot climb fronted by water and very severe bunkers and it is interesting to me that you would suggest the hole is so easy.

The water and bunkers have a diminished influence and interaction with the golfer from the tees I referenced, especially when the golfer is hitting a mid to short iron on his approach to that green.

By the way, you seem to suggest that balls gathering to the center / right-center of the green are gathering towards the target...what about the 80% of the time the the hole is somewhere else.

You seem to be ignoring the influence that the perimeter of a punchbowl green provides.
It essentially, self corrects and redirects the ball toward the pinnable area of the green, thus, it brings the golfer closer to the hole.

In my opinion, the most difficult and interesting approach to a particular hole location on the course is to #1 with a right side pin just beyond the center of the green.

A back hole location, left, right or center, is a very difficult hole location.
It's very intimidating.
The first time I ever played PV the pin was all the way back, a little right of center and I hit my approach to 8 feet and made birdie.  However, when I got to the green and saw the green and surrounds, I told my playing partners that in the future I would just hit to the center of the green and take my chances putting, rather than risk going for the pin and missing the green, left, right or long.

The second most difficult and interesting shot, to me, is when the hole on #18 is short right...and that is because of the already in lace interesting features on and around the green...namely the significant front to back slope on the first third of the green that would need to be negotiated to get the ball inside of 20 feet...on this very simple hole...

Playing to the center of the green makes sense on many holes at PV, and elsewhere.
I'd rather take my chances with a dicey putt than leave myself short of that green.

[JESII]

Pat,

You are demonstrating your inability to view the challenges and features of a golf hole through a lesser players eyes. Your mind has become warped as it enters its second century of guiding your feet through the world...how did this PIMPLE play before JAB removed it? What was that, late 20's? You had just finished your PH, D. no?

I never said the hole was long for me from 420, but it is for the majority of people presently playing the course, and their appropriate tee is quite important.

However, when I got to the green and saw the green and surrounds, I told my playing partners that in the future I would just hit to the center of the green and take my chances putting, rather than risk going for the pin and missing the green, left, right or long.

The above quote seems to support my argument that the current green is a sufficient strategic challenge if a player of your ability would prefer a conservative approach shot to the risks of missing the green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

You are demonstrating your inability to view the challenges and features of a golf hole through a lesser players eyes.

No, it's your mind that's incapable of viewing the challenges as they relate to the features through the lesser player's eyes.

You make the classic mistake of contexting the lesser player's game in a greens in regulation mentality.

The lesser player isn't hitting that green in regulation, they're hitting it with their third (3rd) shot.

Your mind has become warped as it enters its second century of guiding your feet through the world...how did this PIMPLE play before JAB removed it?


It played as Crump intended it to play !


What was that, late 20's? You had just finished your PH, D. no?


No, I was just completing my freshman year ... for the third time.

I never said the hole was long for me from 420, but it is for the majority of people presently playing the course, and their appropriate tee is quite important.

Again, you fail to context the play of the hole in conjunction with the handicap of the player.
With about a 50+ foot drop to the bottom of the fairway, from the tee, the hole plays much shorter than the yardage reads.

However, when I got to the green and saw the green and surrounds, I told my playing partners that in the future I would just hit to the center of the green and take my chances putting, rather than risk going for the pin and missing the green, left, right or long.

The above quote seems to support my argument that the current green is a sufficient strategic challenge if a player of your ability would prefer a conservative approach shot to the risks of missing the green.

You definitely need more sleep.
If you reread my quote in context, you'll see that I was referencing the FIRST hole, NOT the 18th hole.