[JMEvensky]

Of course in retrospect Fern's topped them all but one in Detroit was incredible too for a particular reason----the music that showed up unexpectedly!   

I'm getting a mental picture of you onstage as the 5th Temptation or in the corner canoodling with Diana Ross.

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

I promise I'm about to get on to the first hole of PV.

[JMEvensky]

Jeff:

I promise I'm about to get on to the first hole of PV but you're amazing because you're pretty close there with the music deal at that Detroit deb party.

The deb party was for Christy Wilson, the daughter of the guy that owned the Buffalo Bills, among other things. That whole group of us from New York flew out that and we were on a very tight schedule and running late anway. We even put our tuxes and party dresses on in New York and got out there at night where we got picked up by some really elaborate motor home (we called RVs back then motor homes) and taken to Detroit or Grosse Point or wherever. I never even really knew where we were---I think it might've been the Detroit CC. There was a regular classical band and a lot of dancing but then there was a rumor afoot that there was going to be a special musical deal for Christy, and out onto the stage came Diana Ross and the Supremes. The stage came up to about my waist and I was plastered front and center with my girlfriend (the other Maggie of the "Two Maggies" from the Southampton story) who was a rock and roll maniac anyway. Diana Ross was singing right over my head and looking right down at us. She wasn't more than two feet away. They sung about five songs and then came off the stage with us all. Diana Ross was just incredibly nice and friendly and she said when they got back up for their second and last set to not look too closely at her because they had come off the road themselves in such a rush that they hadn't even had time to get cleaned up and she said she knew she probably looked a little rough around the edges. Bullshit, she looked awful good to me. I don't even remember the rest and then we were all out of there and at another one the next night in Boston or Philadelphia or something. Those were the day Boy!

Again, you've got to stop with this triviality, Jeffrey; we need to tee off on the first at PV and talk some tree removal and some bunkers Crump wanted to do on #1 but didn't live long enough to get to it.

A worthwhile diversion.Now back to PV #1.

[TEPaul]

My primary suggestion on #1 would be to take as many trees out on the right side as possible without exposing something obnoxious far over to the right of the fairway. I'd like to see all the trees out that surround the constructed sand areas and fairly formal bunkers and their sightlines to the green all along the right side which go fairly far in to the right. If that gave the golfer a peak at the green from the tee, great, but that is a bit hard to tell on a cursory examination of the hole.

Crump was intent on improving and adding the bunkering on the right to conceptually drive the tee shot on that hole left. He actually added the bunkering on the right before the road pretty late like in 1917 I believe considering the date of an old aerial photo. But his intention was to do a lot more with the left side than has ever been there. Again, he didn't live and didn't get to it:

Here's the evidence from Father Simon Carr, one of his two closest friends and constant playing partner:

Deleted.


Interesting stuff and even if a bit hard to interpret some of it on the left side obviously Crump intended more elaborate looking bunkers left on the tee shot than the narrow ditch or river bunkers that are all along there now that Carr described as temporary to solve a sheet water problem on the unturfed fairway.

I would not take out trees at the green end at all. Patrick thinks that hole was supposed to be a skyline green look but anyone who really knows the details of the land back there even over the road outside the fence knows that's ridiculous or frankly impossible.

Next, W.P. Smith's words on what Crump wanted which are actually dated---eg 5/9/15!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I'll address your posts and Jim Sullivan's post in the next few days.

I think part of the confusion on your part is your interpretation of the 1925 aerials.

If you look closely, you'll see that areas that appear to be cleared, aren't cleared, they're just covered with shorter trees and vegetation.

I think you thought that I wanted the golf course cleared out to the extent that trees should be removed in the locations where the shorter trees existed, and that would be incorrect.

Please review the 1925 aerials.

A perfect example of what I'm advocating is the 12th hole.

You could throw in # 16 and 17 as good examples as well.

I also liked # 10 as an almost skyline green.

And, I'd certainly like to see # 9 returned to a skyline green.

[TEPaul]

"I think part of the confusion on your part is your interpretation of the 1925 aerials."


Patrick:

I'd say the confusion is on your part, not mine. You've been the one recommending that 1925 aerial for a long time, not me. What I've been saying is it takes a lot more research to understand what one sees on an aerial like that. A lot of it has to do with where Crump was considering holes but never used those areas.



"If you look closely, you'll see that areas that appear to be cleared, aren't cleared, they're just covered with shorter trees and vegetation."


I realize that. Crump cleared those areas and when the course was under construction he obviously began to plant the cleared areas he wasn't going to use for holes. We do know Crump cleared app. 40-50,000 trees down there and then began to replant areas with scotch pine and fir and such.



"I think you thought that I wanted the golf course cleared out to the extent that trees should be removed in the locations where the shorter trees existed, and that would be incorrect."


It's very hard for me or anyone on here to understand what you think at any particular time. You're the one who's been suggesting that 1925 aerial be used as a tree removal blueprint, while I've always suggested that trees surrounding bunkering and their sightlines on EXISTING holes be removed.

"Please review the 1925 aerials."

I've been analyzing all 21 1920s and 1930s aerials for about a decade now. I told John Ott about those Hagley aerials and we went down there and he bought all 21 of them. As you know he passed away in the fall of 2007 and I have a few of his framed 1920s and 1930s aerials hanging on the walls of my barn/office here.

"A perfect example of what I'm advocating is the 12th hole."

I'm not sure what you mean by that but there are a number of bunkers on the left of that fairway and green that are in trees and I think should be cleared so the green could be seen from the original tee as Crump intended it.

"You could throw in # 16 and 17 as good examples as well."

That's worth discussing. Originally Crump's idea for the 17th hole was somewhat farther left with a green planned app. where the 11th tee is today. That was never built and the fairway and green were initially constructed farther right where they are today (even though that 17th green is not Crump's original 17th green).


"I also liked # 10 as an almost skyline green."

One of the reasons the 10th green looked skyline in early photos is because Crump had cleared right up behind it for his 17th hole and green (He originally had a green planned about 40 yards right of the 10th green but it was to be the green of his 6th hole). See the explanation of the his originally planned 17th hole above.


"And, I'd certainly like to see # 9 returned to a skyline green."


That would be nice and I'd like to see that too but it would be very complicated for various reasons including the massive increase in height of trees on that site as well as over the railroad tracks and off the property. For those reasons that original look would be hard to reestablish. Have you ever stood in the approach area and tried to carefully analyze that? I have. The original skyline effect on the original 9th green was one of Crump's favorites on the course--eg that was written. That green is not Crump's original though, it's Perry Maxwell even though it's essentially in the same place as Crump's original.

I think you're getting there Patrick but it has been a slow process trying to educate you on intelligent tree removal at Pine Valley.

[TEPaul]

"If you look closely, you'll see that areas that appear to be cleared, aren't cleared, they're just covered with shorter trees and vegetation."

Pat:

Interesting observation, but you're wrong, as usual . Areas that Crump was looking at for potential holes and parts of holes that were never used (that show up on that 1925 aerial) were cleared of trees though not ground cover vegetation. I can easily point them out to you, where they were, and even what his potential holes or parts of holes that were never used were all about and even probably why they were given up for something else that was built.

Those areas were definitely cleared of trees and the reason was so he could look at them for potential holes. He obviously did not need to clear ground cover vegetation to see those potential holes and parts of potential holes and since they were never used and built on (turfed) he never needed to clear out the ground cover vegetation we can see in those 1925 aerials.

There was a time in the late 1920s when the club got into a really massive tree planting, terracing and revegetating program in a project the club history refers to as "Stabilizing the Course" or "Holding the Course Together."

What I'd never really tried to consider before is WHEN they really were replanted with trees, and perhaps even why. The 1953 aerial compared to the 1925 aerial appears to tell that story pretty well.


I hope that even you, Patricio, can figure out what that so-called "Stabalizing the Course" or "Holding the Course Together Project" was about and the purpose of it! But perhaps you can't. Are you sure you don't want to enroll in my Adult Continuing Education class on golf course architecture with a minor in the history and evolution of PV, Patrick? Again, I will give you the ultra deep super secret discount price on the class.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The stabilization of the course is functionally confined to the sloped areas, especially the steeply sloped areas, such as the land behind the 9th green.

Photos of the golf course circa 1938 reveal that it seems to have stabilized sufficiently. 

Subsequent general plantings beyond the purpose of stabilization are mostly responsible for choking the golf course beyond Crump's intent.

PV was meant to be a W    I    D    E golf course, not a bowling alley.

What significant differences appear in the 1925, 1938, 1953  and 2008 aerials ?

Why don't you email those aerials to a participant who knows how to post them, then everyone can evaluate and judge the wisdom of permiting the invasive tree/shrub/underbrush growth over that time frame.

[TEPaul]

PV was meant to be a W    I    D    E golf course, not a bowling alley.
What significant differences appear in the 1925, 1938, 1953  and 2008 aerial?"


Pat:

Pine Valley is a wide golf course. The fact is its one of the few Golden Age era courses whose fairways have basically never shrunk and there's a good reason for that. The only real difference between the wide fairway widths back then and today is that today they have "turning" strips on each side that are about 3 paces wide. I believe if they chose to use the old up and back cut and look they probably wouldn't even need those anymore.

To make the course look even wider and larger in scale where appropriate I believe all they need to do is identify all those areas where there are bunkers and constructed sand areas off those fairways and get the trees that surround those bunkers and their sightlines out. As you know I've been saying that for years.

What significant differences are there between the stagger of those four aerial years? Well, Patrick, that's the question isn't it. If you are recommending that the 1925 aerial be used as the blueprint for tree removal on that course perhaps it is you who should start to answer those questions and not me because I've told you constantly that I don't believe that 1925 aerial is the proper tree removal blueprint to use for a number of valid reasons. Unfortunately I realize, as others should too, that you can't answer that because you're just not aware of the history and evolution of that golf course. I think you need to be. I think anyone does who makes some blanket tree removal recommendation for that course like that 1925 aerial, as you have. So what do you do? You keep asking me questions apparently so I'll explain everything to you first. I guess you constantly do that so you have something else to try to argue with me about. No deal!

What Crump intended to do on the course in various aspects is fairly well told in what I refer to as "The Remembrances" but obviously you're not aware of that either except what I've explained to you.

If you really want to know what the differences are between the stagger of those four aerials the best way to determine it is to go hole by hole and I will offer that evidence from those remembrances. I agreed to do that with Sully (JES11) above. I didn't see you participating and I understand why.

I already began that on Reply #128 for the first hole but you and others ignored it (Just look at your next post---eg you try to divert things by jumping to the 12th hole instead of attempting to discuss the 1st. We've been on that subject on here on the left side of the 12th hole for years but maybe you're now aware of that). I suppose that's because you realize you don't have much of anything to go on except some pat generalities you've used before like that 1925 aerial but with an intelligent tree removal program and plan pat generalities doesn't really cut it.

I think we can have a good and interesting hole by hole discussion on here; not that the club is asking for that or will consider any of it or even notice it. That's not the point. This on here is just a bunch of architectural junkies having architectural discussions. But part of my mission these days, particularly with you, is to show that no one should make blanket suggestions on something like tree removal as you have with that 1925 aerial as a blueprint without first being thoroughly informed on the details of the entire architectural history and evolution of the golf course as well as ALL the reasons for that evolution.

You don't know them so you have to keep asking me questions about them and to explain it to you. You should've done all that a few years ago BEFORE you made your suggestion about that 1925 aerial as the blueprint for tree removal at PV.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
The stabilization of the course is functionally confined to the sloped areas, especially the steeply sloped areas, such as the land behind the 9th green."


Pat:

That's pretty much true and that project happened in the late 1920s on various areas of the course. Other cleared areas were for potential holes or parts of holes that Crump never used. You pretty much need to understand in detail what they were and where they were before you get into analyzing the trees of Pine Valley. But you don't know anything about those potential holes or parts of them that he cleared to look at but never used do you?

If you do, then go for it; explain them, what they were and why they were never used.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think this substantiates and reinforces my position.

http://www.historicaerials.com/default.aspx?poi=3850

It's difficult to argue with the photographic evidence.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
I think this substantiates and reinforces my position."


Patrick:

You think it substantiates and reinforces your position in what way? To use that 1925 aerial as a total blueprint for a tree clearing program on that golf course??

Of course that historic aerial website doesn't substantiate and reinforce your position. It reinforces what I've been saying for years---eg remove the trees surrounding bunkers and their sightlines on the holes of the golf course and not from areas that were looked at for holes by Crump but never used and never built.

I suppose the problem here is you just haven't even figured out the difference yet. It really is tedious trying to educate you on the realities of the architectural evolution and history of that golf course.

[RJ_Daley]

So Rich Goodale, is that whole question of whether a 'Pine Valley syndrome' exists regarding splendid isolation answered?  I think they acknowledged that to be a syndrome, other course design intentions need to be effected by the common acceptance of a concept such as hole isolation as something that is attempted to be spread to other golf course designs. 

When TEP said; "other than of course I think most everyone is aware that Tom Fazio is PV's consulting architect and has been for years. Mr. Fazio doesn't just consult, he has been a member for years and on the club board too.", I remembered back to the lecture I heard he and Steve Wynn give about their efforts at Shadow Creek.  And, I remember both Fazio and Wynn going on and on about the desire to have every hole corridor, its own isolated environment.  Besides massive shaping and grading of the previously unremarkable sandy desert land into isolated terrain corridors, Faz bragged about the massive efforts to bring Carolina pines in to further wall off and isolate the intended golf hole corridors.  (I think they used the Carolina pine species due to more heat resistance than the species that exist up there in N.J. climate)

So, not to interrupt the thouroughly entertaining "Grumpy Old Men IV" sequel, and if Rich the G is still concious, I just thought I'd throw that FAzio bit in as perhaps the only think I can relate to with these "rememberences" of Pine Valley by the esteamed gents who actually know the place. 

I think that the remarks of intentions by Faz and Wynn at Shadow Creek, to the extreme costliness of doing such,  shows the detrimental aspect of the syndrome aspect of what they have known as splendid isolation, if you consider achieving that isolation at all costs to be a negative... which I do.

I'll take the TOC syndrome of splendid community realization that one gets as one looks across the links of play and sees all the old familiar figures enjoying the fields of play, as they make their way around.

[TEPaul]

RJ:

I'm not too clear what you're implying in the post above. If you're implying that Pine Valley has produced or inspired some "splendid isolation" syndrome with numerous courses around the country or the world I have never seen why that should be considered Pine Valley's responsibility or certainly some reason why Pine Valley should NOT have that "splendid isolation." Pine Valley is a very unique site, always has been since before a course was built there and people from other clubs should learn how to appreciate and certainly understad that FIRST compared to their sites before they go copying Pine Valley by separating all their holes from one another with trees the way Pine Valley always has been.

[RJ_Daley]

Pine Valley is a very unique site, always has been since before a course was built there and people from other clubs should learn how to appreciate and certainly understad that FIRST compared to their sites before they go copying Pine Valley by separating all their holes from one another with trees the way Pine Valley always has been.

That is the point Tom.  If you see the Faz around there, mention it to him.  Why doesn't he see that as unique and not something to be very artificially copied at a place like Shadow Creek.  He has made it a syndrome with copying it in such a high profile way so as to say, 'look, this is something to strive for at all costs, in GCA'. 

[TEPaul]

"He has made it a syndrome with copying it in such a high profile way so as to say, 'look, this is something to strive for at all costs, in GCA'."

RJ:

Is that right? I didn't know Fazio was proposing treelining holes on most all the courses he does or doing that by using Pine Valley as an example. I can certainly understand him treelining or blocking out the desert immediately juxtaposed to Shadow Creek though as that sure doesn't seem to be very attractive land to look at. The mountains in the distance are but not that flat desert next to the course.   
 
 
 

[RJ_Daley]

Yes, you are right that the alternative on that land at SC was just flat unremarkable desert land, adjacent to that course. 

As to whether Fazio prefers a general design concept of 'splendid isolation' on his various designs, I'd have to leave that to those that know his wider body of work.  Or, does anyone know if Fazio has commented specifically on that idea at courses other than SC, as a design concept, which if influenced repeatedly by Pine Valley, would be more of a syndrome, IMO? 

When that general isolation per hole occurs in natural terrain like Sand Hills more or less) then it isn't the syndrome as much as the uniqueness of the land, and then it is readily embraced by most golfers.  I just think that if splendid isolation is a goal on land that must be altered greatly to achieve it, it becomes a syndrome.  And, then I also think you are right Tom, it is big world theory of tastes.  If one likes that, fine.  I don't care for it, personally when it is artificially sought and created at too much cost in construction and too much land wasted. 

[TEPaul]

"I just think that if splendid isolation is a goal on land that must be altered greatly to achieve it, it becomes a syndrome.  And, then I also think you are right Tom, it is big world theory of tastes.  If one likes that, fine.  I don't care for it, personally when it is artificially sought and created at too much cost in construction and too much land wasted."


RJ:

I think that's the ticket completely.

Pine Valley did not alter their site artificially with trees. There were hundreds of thousands of trees (mostly pines) on that site before Crump bought it and built on it and that's the way it is today. The only difference is they were almost all pretty small in 1912 and they aren't any longer.

I don't think you need to worry about Sand Hills treelining their holes or planting any trees at all. I know that's not going to happen.

Personally I like real variety in golf and architecture across the spectrum----ie some courses that have treelined holes and I sure like the quite and sereness of PV's holes and some courses who have few to no trees. For that reason I'm growing tired of these people who seem to suggest trees never belong on any golf course as much as I've grown tired of those who seem to think every golf course should have tree-lined holes. 

Matter of fact, I've even grown tired of those (some who've been on this website) who for years have automatically criticized every single thing Tom Fazio has ever done. Like anything that gets completely overdone it becomes really boring after a while. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()