Crump did intend to construct some kind of a ridge into the green running from perhaps the position of that pimple to the right side of the green.

I believe that I stated same in a previous post.

What's clear, by design and construction, is that Crump intended and built the 18th green with a prominent feature, a mound-pimple in the middle of the green.

If Crump had any desire to remove the pimple, it was only to replace it with another internal feature, a ridge, that would provide a similar function.

He NEVER intended the green to be the punchbowl it is today.
[/color]

Paul Turner,

I don't think one analyzes the greens at PV and comes away thinking, "what a great green for a finishing hole at Pine Valley"
It's rather bland and forgiving.

There's no doubt in my mind that the original green, or Crump's alleged alteration, was far superior.

So, the issue isn't the amount of time that the green has been in its present form.  That's no barometer of its merit,

Certainly no more than the invasive trees that have been allowed to exist for decades are their own barometer of their merit.  

The issues are:
 
# 1 is today's green superior to the one that Crump designed
      and built ?

# 2 is today's green superior to the one that Crump is alleged
      to have wanted to replace the original green ?

I think the answer is NO to both questions, and as such, the green should be returned to its original form, or its alleged form.   And, I favor the original form because we can visualize and reconstruct it with absolute certainty, whereas, the alleged alteration is subject to doubt, and interpretation at best.

Quote

It's even recorded what his purpose in doing that was. But in so doing he told his two closest friends there that he planned to remove the pimple because he built it to be only temporary.

Yes, but you're leaving out the most important part, the part where he wants to replace it with a ridge like feature that would accomplish the same thing, function as he intended.

He NEVER wanted to remove the pimple and leave the green void of a defining contour.   You know that, but have chosen to ignore that important factor and fact.[/color]

If you want to dispute that documentation I really wonder what you plan to use that's factual. You are interested in FACTS rather than speculation, aren't you?

I've stated ALL OF THE FACTS, not just a select few as  you have[/color]

It did exist but if there's clear documentation that Crump considered it temporary and planned to remove it and to construct in its place some kind of a ridge in the green, that certainly should be seriously considered, don't you think?


I've said that a dozen times, put your reading glasses on.[/color]

I would not suggest they restore the pimple that Crump intended as temporary but I would suggest they consider doing what he eventually planned to do---eg put a ridge into the green for the very same reason he planned to do just that.

The problem I have with your choice is that it's based on conjecture, on third party sources, while the original green is indisputable in its design, construction and authorship.[/color]

We'll have to disagree with the merits of the green.  I didn't find it bland or forgiving.  

Paul, you seriously don't find the punchbowl nature of the green forgiving on approach and recovery shots ?

At more than 11,000 square feet you don't find it bland ?

I don't think a pimple in that green fits with rest of the greens at PVGC, as they are today.  

Do the 1st, 3rd and 6th greens at NGLA fit in with the others ?

When Crump built it, perhaps it did fit the course better since greens such as 8 and 11 had severe tiers.  But no more.  A tier doesn't really fit either.

The 16th at NGLA is certainly a forgiving green would a pimple add interest to it?  

Two points

CBM didn't design it with a pimple, and
The 16th at NGLA is a fraction of the size of # 18 at PV, and on that basis alone, a pimple wouldn't work.

A large pimple would certainly be more in keeping with the other greens at NGLA when compared with the greens at PVGC.

That's not true.

How can you put a large pimple on a small green ?
Especially a green with substantive perimeter slope,
The interpolation and comparison doesn't work between # 16 at NGLA and # 18 at PV.  It's a flawed analogy on scale alone.

And, # 16 is a breather hole, not the finishing hole on a golf course designed and perceive as a "championship test" for the best players in America.

# 18 green at PV is not, in its present form, a "championship" green.   It was when Crump designed and built it.

Patrick, Have you ever played that hole to a short right pin? How about the one back center at the base of the small mound? I think if you had your opinion of the 18th green might be a bit different.


JES II,

If you hit your approach to the middle of the green, irrespective of where the hole is located, do you really feel that a top caliber golfer is challenged with the putt or putts he faces ?[/color]

A number of times I've told you that Crump did have every intention of removing that pimple and replacing it with some form of a ridge running from there to the right side of the green (He told both Carr and Smith that the pimple was 'temporary'). He put that pimple there, in his words; 'To penalize golfers who sliced their approach across the green.'

TEPaul,

How many times do I have to repeat my position that Crump always intended for there to be an internal feature, be it pimple, mound or ridge within that putting green.

You keep confirming that, while attempting to dispute me in some convoluted way.[/color]

"If you hit your approach to the middle of the green, irrespective of where the hole is located, do you really feel that a top caliber golfer is challenged with the putt or putts he faces ?"

He sure can be particularly if the pin is front right. You can get it close to the front right pin but generally you have to hit a good drive and a pretty precise approach. Coming from anywhere above that front right pin can be pretty intense.

We all know that that basically applies when the green speeds are fast to super fast, which isn't that frequent.

The green is a fairly benign green[/color]

You never know on that green, though. One time in the Crump I was playing Joel Hirsch from Chicago and he was like one up on me all day. It was just one of those matches I felt I wasn't gonna win as we were both playing good, particularly him. He was one up on me going to #18 and I made par and Joel hit a spectacular approach to the right and right under the front right pin about 15-17 ft. I thought he might birdie that hole and I had all my stuff off and in the bag and inexplicably he 3 putted by hitting his first putt way too hard and we went to overtime. You never know on that green.

Another mistake a lot of players who don't know that course well tend to make is when the pin is way back on that green and you're basically putting right up at it. That putt is the slowest putt on the golf course---always.

Perhaps they should add minimum IQ requirements in addition to handicap requirements.   [/color]

And, Patrick, the 18th green at PVGC is definitely not a punchbowl green. There's definitely no bowl effect to it on the right side.

I described it as saucer-punchbowl like, and think that provides an accurate description to those who haven't seen the green.   You even said, in the paragraph above, that when the pin is in the very back of the green that you have to putt uphill.[/color]

When those greens are firm and fast, if you hit an approach even right into the middle of the green (side to side) your ball will invariably get off the green on the right. You can argue your point all you want but that's a fact.

Perhaps if you hit a low, lined slice, like you do, that's what you'll experience.  I've never seen a well played, well struck ball unrewarded.  And, if you play those greens when they're firm and fast, which green isn't a severe challenge ?

I submit that # 18 is one of the easier tests you'll face that day, primarily due to it's size of over 11,000 sq/ft.[/color]

Sully, I'd have to think not many people know that course and its nuances as well as you do but that never stopped Patrick from explaining things to people anyway. Did you know the first green would make a great skyline?  

I thought that you had conceded that point ages ago.

Throw in # 2, # 9 and # 17.

I love skyline greens.

But, let's forget them for a second.

Removing the "framing" trees behind the 1st green would enhance the hole.[/color]

"That's more a function of the unique cant of the fairway and the elevation of the putting surface rather than the actual putting surface"

Patrick:

You're wrong about that. The fairway cant is no big deal, nor is the raised green. The putting surface is really canted left to right (it is not a bowl as you've termed it).

TEPaul,

Think about what you're saying.

A fairway that cants left to right and slopes away from you will promote a low trajectory fade-slice.

Insert an elevated green into the equation and the approach shot gets more difficult.

The left and rear of the green are elevated above the mid-point of the green, and to me, that inserts an element of forgiveness with the approach and recoveries.[/color]

When those greens are firm and of usual speed they can't really pin that green to the left of the middle (side to side) and the ball on approach gets right more dramatically than most suspect---eg it's very possible to hit the extreme left of the green surface and have your ball filter right well past the middle. I admit, in my experiences there, I'm usually coming into that green with some pretty long club----but nevertheless.

I understand that.

But, the green itself doesn't present the putting challenge, or approach challenge that would be presented if a pimple existed in the middle of the green.

It would be even harder to reach the area where the hole is cut.[/color]

It's an interesting green that would not benefit from the replacement of a large pimple.

I totally disagree and would ask you these questions.

Would getting to the appropriate area of the green where the hole is cut become more demanding on the approach shot ?

Would getting to the appropriate area of the green where the hole is cut become more demanding on the recovery shot ?

Would putting, having to traverse any portion of the pimple, become more difficult ?

The overwhelming answer is YES to all three.