Thanks Brian, youz a generous human bian!  

I have one more "stupid question". Is it a one shotter?

I believe several trees have been removed since Tommy's photo of #14 was taken.  I played there last Oct. and from the tee, the hole does not look this constricted.  The large bunker that wraps around the green on the right is much more visible now.  The trees that have been removed around the green have made the shot more difficult from a visual perspective.

This green is a grass island surrounded by sand.  What could be made more rugged?  The edge of the sand goes right up to the edge of the green with a very small strip of rough in between.  It is very natural looking and not overly manicured.  If you want to pick on Mr. Fazio, I don't think this picture is a good example.

C'mon...While you guys are at it, maybe you could blame him for this:

Brian's picture around 1983 looks pretty clean to me.  It has a rougher look now than it did then.

I was bothered by the bunker, in proximity to the water. Looked alot like a containment thang.

How did Crump leave it?

George; I'm just not that doctrinaire.  While I am not enamored with the trees on this hole (judging only from the pictures which can be misleading) the blanket condemnation of trees on a golf course has never been something I could agree with.  I believe that courses are best when they combine strategic and aesthetic considerations.  In my view, aesthetic considerations are generally enhanced when a course is in harmony with the surrounding area.  Thus links course are devoid of trees and any attempt to introduce them is awkward and counterproductive.  Similarly, parkland courses look unnatural when they are totally devoid of trees.  The trick is to avoid overplanting and to allow sufficient strategic choices.  Note that Augusta, prior to the introduction of the recent changes had many trees that enhanced the beauty and experience of playing or visiting the course.  However, they were for the most part well out of play and thus the "old" Augusta" was extremely strategic.  Its not the trees, a "specimen" tree can add a lot.  Its where they're placed.

P.V. #14 was claustrophobic when I played there several years ago.  My general impression was that the trees were out of control and that the bunkers needed some work.  Mostly species that were out of place not the unkempt look.

Even with the train tracks behind #14 I think it would be better if opened up.  The trees are overwhelming.

JSlonis,

Brian's picture around 1983 looks pretty clean to me.  It has a rougher look now than it did then.

I agree.

Earlier, I indicated that you can't compare the current picture to pictures taken in 1922-1925, and that comparisons should be done with photos taken immediately before Fazio's work.

The 1983 photo reflects the hole long before Fazio began his work.

I don't have the same problem with the photo Tommy Naccarato posted, that Tommy does.  It's not Fazio who should be the object of his ire, it's the leadership of PV that allowed the golf course to get overgrown with trees, which from the picture posted happened prior to 1983.

Shel -

You are correct that trees aren't necessarily introduced in this type of environment, but I dislike them nonetheless, for reasons already stated.

I look at those early photos of ANGC, PV, Oakmont, Riviera, etc., and think, oh, what might have been (not that there's anything wrong with the current renditions of each - I'd kill to be able to play a course that these on even a semi regular basis).

My home course is a bare bones basic muni. Some genius decided to add some trees in the rough in some really ridiculous spots. If all trees were banned from the interior of all golf courses( ), this wouldn't be an issue.

Tommy; a vote for rough and ragged at PV.

Should the voter have had his PV cherry busted? If so I abstain. if not, you know my pref.

Pat, Do you want the course looking clean and manicured or rough and rugged. NGLA has nothing to do with my question.

Rough and ragged.  The Valley is beyond compare to any other golf course I have ever played, and I have been lucky to play most of the top ten.  You can't understand it until you have played it.  When you have, it becomes obvious. I am not an architect, but anyone who would do work at Pine Valley is accepting an enormous responsibility.

The board at Pine Valley has been softening the course subtly for 15 years or longer, in an effort to accommodate the many visitor rounds they play.  They will admit it in private but certainly not in public, since they believe the course's reputation for difficulty was a prerequisite for its reputation as America's best course.

Tom Fazio has a LOT of influence with Ernie Ransome and the present club officers; they've known him since he was a kid and his uncle was the club professional.  I'm sure he's had something to do with the general direction of their work; and I'm fairly sure I would have told them to do the same thing.

It's true that Fazio was reluctant to do the Short Course years ago, and that he himself said he didn't want to alter Pine Valley in any way.  That was his approach to all golf course consulting work at that time; he'd been stung by criticism of the work at Oak Hill and Inverness, and wanted to make his mark with his own golf courses.  However, he has had a complete change of heart re: consulting in recent years, so his earlier statement about Pine Valley should no longer be considered relevant.