I do not really understand the invitational reference, I can only assume that you mean  because one's golfing ability gets you an invite to an event then all of a sudden you cannot have any of your own thoughts...strange concept..you must have me confused with somebody else !!

I feel quite comfortable the same golfing record that enabled me to recive the invite will continue to speak for itself, and that having an opinion is not a feature that will remove me from the invitation list.

You must be very young.

In what year did you first play Pine Valley ?[/color]

With reference to the old aerials that you and macwood keep refering to, I do not see how they could possibly show fledgling trees that may have been less than ..say..3 feet tall at the time..just a thought.

The detail in the aerial and GROUND level photos is sufficient enough to reveal 3 foot trees.  But, how do you know that they planted 3 foot trees as opposed to 8, 12 or 16 foot trees ?

Don't you think that after 10, 15 or 20 years that those trees would grow and be a little, if not a lot bigger ?[/color]

I think we all agree that tree impingment when it is a problem has to be dealt with.. such as you have pointed out  to the left of number 17{I have no reson to doubt you, even though I have not noticed it.

Did you notice the areas on the golf course where trees had recently been removed ?[/color]

 I think the only place we differ is whether we should see more land or not..and that is a matter of personal preference...I just happen to be with those who prefer Pine Valley with isolated holes than not..

I understand that.  Taste or style is a personal preference or choice.  And, you are entitled to your opinion with respect to how you like the golf course, even though you never saw it in a different condition.  If you saw the golf course as it was 30 or 40 years ago, I wonder if you'd change your opinion.
You're somewhat handicapped by not having a playing basis for comparison.
[/color]

From what I have been told that WAS Mr Crump's original plan..but no I was not there at the time to hear him say it.....by the way I dont believe macwood was there either!!

None of us were present.  And, none of us were present for the Gettysburgh address, or the signing of the Armistice after WW I, but written evidence of those events exist for all to view.  

Who told you of Crump's original plan, where did they see it, where is it now, and what was it ?

Are you aware of the terrible turf problems that PV encountered in its early days ?  And the impact that heavy tree planting might have on those problems.

Are you aware of the fact that 20-30 or more years ago that PV was aware of problems the trees were creating with their turf and the resultant metal shield defense they employed to counter it ?  Do you think that 20-30 years of growth has ameliorated or exacerbated those recognized problems ?

[/color]

"Are you aware of the terrible turf problems that PV encountered in its early days ?  And the impact that heavy tree planting MIGHT have on those problems."

Pat;

That's completely untrue. The early failures of the agronomy at PVGC didn't have one damn thing to do with trees and I can completely prove that because I really do have the ENTIRE WRITTEN RECORD of what those problems were and what it took to SPECIFICALLY correct them!

Tom, your reading comprehension skills are failing.
Reread what I wrote.  I didn't say that the trees were the problem.  I said that planting trees in the future MIGHT exacerbate the problem, callling in to question the prudence of wanting to plant more trees.[/color]

Look Pat and Tom MacWood the course is #1 and has been for a long time and probably will continue to be. The reasons they got there, are there, and probably will continue to be there are good reasons and a part of those reasons are they don't have members like you who try to micromanage the pants off everybody and everything and if they do have members like you at least they have the great and good common sense not to listen to them---and it's always been that way down there---THANK GOD!

Perhaps the routing, hole designs and individual features, which are largely untouched have something to do with it.

Tom, you continue to support an arrogant sense of infallibility, that they can't possibly make a mistake or become misdirected.  I don't adhere to that.  And, I'll say it again.
Without constructive criticism, progress is impossible.

Follow the logic, not your emotions and ties to the club.[/color]

I am fairly young, although I do not understand the relevance.


It's about not biting the hand that feeds you.[/color]

I not play PV until 2002, so you are quite correct I have very little to compare it to, however, very few of us on this site played it back in the 1940's or 1950's, but I submit that I may have a different opinion if I had played the course back then.
I must stress however that it is the current isolation that intrigues me so much about PV and what to me,  helps make the course the challenge that it is.

That's your personal preference and I understand and respect that, although it's at odds with my views.[/color]

I am making the assumption, maybe incorrectly, that the technology back at the time of early tree planting would not allow for the uprooting of 15 ft trees without the death of the roots, as such I feel quite sure that saplings were planted.
It's more of a cost factor then a technology factor.
Balling and re-planting 8',12' and 16' trees remains practically the same today as it did years ago.[/color]  

All of my "assumptions" come from older Pv members who I met at PV.

Were they old enough to have been members in the teens, 20's and 30's when Crump's contemporaries were alive ?[/color]

Even though I aws there to compete, my interest in architecture was such that I was going to ask questions..I was well aware from the aerials that things had either changed or matured depending on your point of view.

The members I spoke to stressed it was a maturing process rather than a changing of strategy which leads to the belief that it was indeed Mr Crumps intent to have the isolation.
But perhaps they are all wrong.

Perhaps they are.

How else would you account for a large tree that is only 40-60 years old ?

If trees become invasive to the lines of play, such as at # 17, isn't that changing the strategy that Crump intended, designed and built ?[/color]

I was aware of the turf problems, as it was pointed out by those same members, but someone must have got it right, because the playing surface now is simply awesome, despite all the trees.

Were these members, members 30 years or so ago when the metal shield defense was employed ?
Do you think their budget might have something to do with it ?
Do you think grooming to prepare for a special tournament, once a year, might have something to do with it ?[/color]

Again I stress that excess tree impingement has to be dealt with wherever it occurs.
At my home course,a Langford/ Moreau design that truly defines hidden gems,we had to remove some 200 trees for playability and as far as I am comcerned we could remove someto more closely "restore" the course to its intended look.

In the context of playability, shouldn't the same standard be applied to both courses, your home course and PV ?[/color]

Quit simply our differences on PV are isolation versus the pre growth openness

But, since you never played the golf course before 2002 you wouldn't come to that conclusion other then through hearsay.
Had you played it in 1975, 1965 or 1955 your views might be entirely different.  That's why I asked you when you first played the golf course, to gain a sense of relativity regarding your personal experiences and the context in which you judged the golf course.[/color]

I know we jest, but you can't be suggesting that a ball lying within the fairway margins should have trees impeding the flight of the ball to the green on non-dogleg holes, are you ?

Whats better? .....I haven't played PV in 3 years and I've heard of some of the changes.....