Changes at Pine Valley and Merion

« **Reply #25 on:** January 19, 2004, 01:14:18 PM »

TEPaul:

Read your comments. Many thanks. Just a two quick questions ...

How much of what PV is doing is really about insecurity -- I mean when you are considered the #1 course in the world (not I though) is there really any place for you to go except down?

Do the powers-that-be see what is happening with the changing landscape (plenty of other Phiile courses are doing such things) on other superior courses and are just simply r-e-a-c-t-i-n-g to it instead of holding their ground and simply leaving PV as PV was?

« **Reply #26 on:** January 19, 2004, 01:55:14 PM »

Matt:

As far as the recent length addition to PVGC being about insecurity and concern about remaining #1 I really do doubt that. The course has been #1 in the country and the world for a long time now and certainly every member there is aware of that--but if you ask me just how much they care about that for a world #1 course I'd say not very much compared to most other courses if they were in PV's position.

The golf course and club is run by one man too, the President, that's the way it's always been there. Gordon Brewer is a very good player, he's won two national amateurs, and he's intimately aware of the differences in the way good players from something like the Crump Cups or a field of the best pros in this area (Philly Open 2002) play that golf course. I don't believe anyone is actually scoring much lower than they have before but they are using clubs they never did before. That's what's driven this tee length addition and the few other changes, in my opinion. As he said they're trying to get these holes to play more the way they were designed to be played.

But again, I'd seriously doubt they did this over a concern to remain #1 (or insecurty). The people who belong to PV understand how good their golf course is, they really don't need something like Golf or Golf Digest to confirm that for them.

« **Reply #27 on:** January 19, 2004, 04:29:01 PM »

TEPaul:

Why should PV really care that a very small handful of people are hitting mich shorter clubs into the targets. The essence of the course is stll there -- why worry about doing anything?

The reason I say this is that it seems the club is simply
r-e-a-c-t-i-n-g and from where I sit it also appears that although it may not be the key reason for the changes the indirect outcome does react to what others may ultimately think of the course through ratings and the like.

As someone who knows the mindset of PV I appreciate your comments.

« **Reply #28 on:** January 19, 2004, 05:03:17 PM »

"The reason I say this is that it seems the club is simply
r-e-a-c-t-i-n-g and from where I sit it also appears that although it may not be the key reason for the changes the indirect outcome does react to what others may ultimately think of the course through ratings and the like."

Matt:

I know what you're saying. It probably does seem like PVGC is reacting to the distance problem and looking for length to protect their positon in the rankings or something. I know a lot of people probably think that but I don't think that's the reason they made those changes. It might've had something to do with it but not much.

As I said, PVGC has done so few outside tournaments over the years--so they don't exacly have that type of barometer as some other top courses do. I think the Philly Open in 2002 was the first in many years--other than the 1988 Walker Cup when Davis Love opened everyone's eyes!

So it really is the annual Crump Cup that's the club's barometer to see how things are going. The Crump does have a number of pretty good players. A couple of years ago, it was, I heard Trip Kuehne talking to some others that a number of them weren't really using driver at all there the ball was going so far. So I guess he's by no means the only one. The club and Gordon Brewer hears this and sees this for sure. As he said they're just trying to get the holes to play as much like they were designed to play as they can.

The problem with PVGC is their tee elasticity is pretty limited to nil on a number of holes. But it is interesting that some of what they just did were things Crump himself wanted to do back in the teens!! Crump wanted that course to be a real super test for the good player and obviously the club would like to keep it that way as much as possible. I hope they really do know exactly what Crump was planning to do before he died. I'd like to mention it but I can't stick my nose into their architectural business.

But again, I don't think this has to do with insecurity, as you say. This has to do with what they've seen there. You may say what difference should it make to them where their annual Crump Cup players hit the ball but that does matter to them---I promise you, the Crump Cup is important to PVGC!

« **Reply #29 on:** January 20, 2004, 11:57:41 AM »

Redanman: I'd suggest your analogy for Merion is close, except at the moment, she's like an aging Hollywood actress that is holding things together and is still regarded as a beauty. However, if she goes under the knife a couple times more....

Robert

« **Reply #30 on:** January 20, 2004, 12:02:47 PM »

Robert;

Some of us already look at the bunker work there and see the collagen, stretchmarks, and saline.

Like a facelift patient after a botched surgery, that "puffiness" seems to be chronic.

« **Reply #31 on:** January 20, 2004, 06:00:42 PM »

The "new" new tee additions to Merion is pretty interesting. It'll be interesting to see how some of those holes play in the 2005 US Amateur. #5 is right about 500 yards. To be honest I never even noticed they had that much more room behind the new tee at 475 but they do. That one will be one helluva a par 4 even for the long hitters. The new new back tee is right in line with the others so the angle is perfect. The only thing to mention on that one is golfers will have to walk about 75 yards back from #4 green and then walk right back again. That's about 150 yards more walking then from the old tips to the left of #4. #6 will be tougher. Don't know that I would've ever thought to stretch #9 where they did. #12 is right back to the property line fence now around 400 yds. #13 tees were completely melded and merged. #14 is going back. #15 sure is a bit tricky to get a back tee in where they did. I was looking at the back of it about a month ago and there didn't seem to be enough room between that single tree to the right of #14 and #16 green to tie the back of that tee out so it sort of sticks up in the rear but looking at it next to the berm on the back of #16 green is sort of interesting. I stood on the back of #15 tee but at that point it hadn't had the seed mix filled in nor was it completely shaped but it was a bit hard for me to see over the front end of the tee. I could just see the bunkers but nothing in front of them and I'm 6'. They did a pretty good job of tying in all the ground around the new back tee on #17 and they did an excellent job of slightly bowling the top of the quarry in front of the tee for visibility from the new tips. I guess #17 will be around 240 now. It sure did look a long way off from where I was standing on the back of that new teeing area. And I guess they put a small tee in on the other side of the maintenance path on #18. That one must be around 500 yds now. I think they picked up over 200 total yards on the course and I guess anyone would have to say that just about totally maxes out Merion now!

« **Reply #32 on:** January 20, 2004, 06:22:21 PM »

TEPaul,

As you might expect, I have a slightly different perspective on adding length at Pine Valley.

I think it takes some of the pressure off of the resistance to scoring concern as manifested by super speeding the greens.

As you know, some of those greens have been softened, because the super speeds couldn't be reasonably maintained on greens with steep or severe pitch and/or slope.

Moving tees back will relieve some of that pressure, and bring the golf course back to the way it was intended to be played.

I recall that some of the early, long hitters, never used a driver on that golf course, and somehow, I don't think Crump had that in mind when he designed the golf course to be a championship test.

But, that's just my theory.

« **Reply #33 on:** January 20, 2004, 07:55:42 PM »

Pat;

I sure wouldn't say the tee length addition, and other alterations, had anything to do with taking some pressure off the greenspeeds at PVGC. Basically they've been running the speeds they do now for over twenty five years and I don't look for them to move their greenspeeds up or down in the future. The minimal green softening that was done on that course, in my opinion, had more to do with some real slope anomalies on a few holes like the front right of #5. It was probably just built too severe.

My impression is that Crump definitely liked the driver (he sure did love his) and wanted to encourage it's use but that was almost 90 years ago.

« **Reply #34 on:** January 20, 2004, 09:49:01 PM »

TEPaul,

Quote from: TEPaul on January 20, 2004, 07:55:42 PM

Pat;

I sure wouldn't say the tee length addition, and other alterations, had anything to do with taking some pressure off the greenspeeds at PVGC. Basically they've been running the speeds they do now for over twenty five years and I don't look for them to move their greenspeeds up or down in the future.

They can't be sped up, unless the ball has a velcro cover

The minimal green softening that was done on that course, in my opinion, had more to do with some real slope anomalies on a few holes like the front right of #5. It was probably just built too severe.

They seemed to do well for about 80 years without being softened, increased speed and speed alone forced the issue.

My impression is that Crump definitely liked the driver (he sure did love his) and wanted to encourage it's use but that was almost 90 years ago.

That's what I'm saying, his intent has be thwarted by technology.

In addition, protecting par at the green end, by speeding up those greens, is not the answer either, at any golf course.

There comes a point when green speeds in conjunction with contour or slope make a mockery of the game.

You cited Harcourt Kemp's six putting the 18th at Seminole,
surely Donald Ross didn't intend for a reasonably well struck putt to roll off the green, halfway down the fairway.
Many golf courses, in an attempt to protect par have done so by making the greens so fast that they're impossible to putt, even for a highly skilled golfer, and just as difficult to chip or pitch to. PV, like other courses, has fallen prey to the same bunker mentality.

« **Reply #35 on:** January 21, 2004, 06:47:42 AM »

Pat:

Regarding your post #36 you seem to be continuing to make some point that PV is contemplating pushing their greenspeeds higher and as a consequence will continue to soften their greens. I do not in any way believe that's true and I don't believe you should be implying such a thing. That's why I said to you that the speeds they sometimes run now (in things like the Crump Cup) are no higher than they occasionally ran up to 20-25 years ago and I don't see them increasing their greenspeed in the future because they definitely don't need to and they understand that and have for years. So why then are you implying they're going to increase their greenspeed and continue to soften their greens?

As far as the 18th green at Seminole, Ross and Harcourt Kemp 6 putting it in the final hole of the Coleman---that was pretty much Harcourt and not completely over the top greenspeed! And that green is not Ross anyway, it's Dick Wilson. Walk about 20 steps to the right of the present 18th green and towards the practice tee and you'd be on what was once Ross's 18th green.

« **Reply #36 on:** January 21, 2004, 07:09:47 AM »

TEPaul,

Hello. Since you were at Merion recently, what can you say of the bunker aesthetics? Have the faces "evolved" at all? If not yet, will the Club allow them to age? Is this a concern to them? Has broom been added to the traditional areas? What about the Little Blue Stem plantings (like in/around the fairway bunkers on 4, 8, 14, etc.)?

Yours,

FJC

« **Reply #37 on:** January 21, 2004, 07:59:52 AM »

FredC:

What can I say about the Merion bunker aesthetics and if they've evolved? First of all, you asked about the faces of the Merion bunkers. I'm not referring to the sand areas here (the faces)--I'm referring to what many of us on here call the bunker "surrounds". Those are the grass areas immediately juxtaposed to the sand and out all around the bunkers and particularly above the sand faces.

Have they evolved? Definitely. They've "grassed" much more creating a random and edgy look and they look pretty damn good to me now. The only problem is they don't look much like the Merion bunkers used to look or ever looked. I think that's the thing that disturbs some and many on this website.

As far as I'm concerned the reason they don't look like they used to and probably never will "evolve" to look like they used to is simply because they were constructed differently in the recent bunker project than they used to be!

The reason why that was and how that was is another subject and I don't think I want to dredge up that discussion again that lasted on here for about two years and probably got way out of hand by some who really aren't all that familiar with the details anyway.

There's another factor to the new look compared to the old original look. That could be the bunker surround grasses. They may be using more blue grass now then they used to (less fescue and other strains) but I'm sure not certain of that. Different grass strains of course will eventually make any bunkers look different.

Some even say that many on here have made something out of nothing on here about the look and aesthetics of the new Merion bunkers compared to the way they used to look.

To that I would say not really or maybe even yes and no. The reason I particularly say that is ironically there are a few bunkers at Merion right now that look the way the bunkers once did and should look, in my opinion.

There're approximately five bunkers that are on the high right side of the quarry on #16 (quarry hole). These five bunkers apparently were not done by Macdonald & Co, they were done in-house. Matter of fact I don't believe they ever even existed before.

But they look to me just like the original bunkers of Merion all over the course once looked. The reason they look different is I believe the construction method was different. They have none of the rolled over grass lips of the rest of the Macdonald bunkers that some have called the "puffy and upholstered" look.

The "surrounds" (where the grass lines meet the sand) on those five in the quarry are far more low profile as are their general grass surrounds which give those five a more natural look as if they'd been the work of the forces of wind and water over time (Nature).

« **Reply #38 on:** January 21, 2004, 09:05:29 AM »

Tom - Have you heard about the plans to place a back tee on #14 in the putting green? They are considering recontouring the putting green to create a very small flat space where markers can be placed for the US Am.

« **Reply #39 on:** January 21, 2004, 09:06:15 AM »

Tom;

Thanks for the objective report.

The fact is, Tom is correct. Because of different construction techniques (all 100+ bunkers on the course were rebuilt from scratch in about 5 months total), different grasses, and different bunker infrastructure, (not to mention different bunker depths), The new bunkers have as much chance of evolving into the look of the old bunkers as Christina Aguilera has of evolving into Grace Kelly. $:-\$

Waiting and hoping for them to do so is the height of folly and futility. Better chance of a jolly, fat man coming down your blooming chimney.

« **Reply #40 on:** January 21, 2004, 09:17:09 AM »

SPDB;

You may have tapped into something. Perhaps that thinking can be extended around the course and before you know it, Merion would be 7,300 yards.

We could start #1 on the 18th green. Just level a patch and voila, it's a 420 yard par four. Tee off on the first green and make the second into a daring cape hole over Ardmore Avenue, etc., etc.

The one I REALLY want to see, however, is playing number 14 from the 13th green. Why, you'd have about a 550 yard par four, over the corner of the clubhouse (sort of like the Road Hole).

It's amazing what can happen when you just let your imagination go in these creative and exciting times.

« **Reply #41 on:** January 21, 2004, 09:22:00 AM »

Mike -
I'm afraid your plan for 13 won't be exactly as conceptualized. You see, they are relocating 13 green to sit on top of the outdoor lunch area.

In all seriousness, I think even you can recognize the innocuousness of altering a putting green slightly to accomodate added length (irrespective of the wisdom or utility of gaining 20 yards)

« **Reply #42 on:** January 21, 2004, 09:24:10 AM »

Sean;

"Even me"?

Yeah, I'm just funning you.

I'm sure that all of the new tees just fit right into the landscape as congruously as OJ's gloves.

« **Reply #43 on:** January 21, 2004, 10:22:25 AM »

"Tom - Have you heard about the plans to place a back tee on #14 in the putting green? They are considering recontouring the putting green to create a very small flat space where markers can be placed for the US Am."

SPDB:

Yes, I have "heard" that but for the life of me, at this moment, I can't exactly remember who I "heard" it from.

« **Reply #44 on:** January 21, 2004, 10:55:22 AM »

Other than just joking around any rational architectural mind would have to assume that with the "new" new tee length additions to Merion the course is now maxed out total card yardage wise and they won't ever be able to get more total card yardage there.

Not that it really matters because Merion, somewhat like PVGC but more so, is very misleading in a total card yardage sense. As Nick Faldo very intelligently said one only needs to notice that Merion has some of the best long par 4s you can find but it also happens to have a good number of really short and really good par 4s. Not just that but Merion, as does PVGC, only has two par 5s! So basically there's no way to get those courses over 7,000 yards nor would there ever be a reason to do so.

From what I've seen of those "new" new back tees it seems they'll work very well for the 2005 US Amateur and maybe even the pros. Although I haven't exactly analyzed the look of them from every conceivable angle they also look OK too.

The new "stretch" on the back of #15 tee is the only one that sticks out a bit to me particularly when viewed from the rear (clubhouse, #14 or #18). But even from that angle it does sort of "match" interestingly with the back of the built up berm behind #16 green.

But for the longer player of today it looks to me like these new added tee length holes will play well.

« **Reply #45 on:** January 21, 2004, 11:49:26 AM »

I've read all the comments on this thread and I still have to wonder how two superb courses -- among the top 10 by almost all accounts worldwide -- feel the absolute need to tweak the canvas of a Mona Lisa like painting?

Although Tom Paul does not want to ascribe it to "insecurity" I have to say that when people do make changes / improvements (?) they are in fact reacting to the perception that their particular facility is falling behind the likes of similar noted courses.

Mike C may have said his comments in jest but the point he articulated has currency in my mind. This idea of a tweak here and a tweak there and before you know it the very essence of what was there becomes another animal.

If two courses are already in the highest of esteem without DOIND A THING it just seems to me that they are very concerned about their standing and the continued relevance of their design. Something I found disconcerting because both PV and Merion are already classics and need not the follow the crowd.

« **Reply #46 on:** January 21, 2004, 11:53:58 AM »

Matt;

My comments may have been said in jest, but they are heartfelt and I completely agree with you.

Sometimes humor is the best way to illustrate a serious, yet sensitive point.

« **Reply #47 on:** January 21, 2004, 11:57:47 AM »

Matt,

Don't confuse "relevance of design" with "standing". A club can be concerned that it is played as it was designed and still not be concerned with the rankings of an outside agency.

And don't lump PVGC and Merion into the same bucket as far as their desires. PVGC is not trying to pursuade the USGA to give them another US Open.

« **Reply #48 on:** January 21, 2004, 12:05:05 PM »

Tom Ross;

Some very good points, but I was at Pine Valley immediately following the placement of Pebble Beach at the new #1 course a few years back.

I can tell you that it wasn't unimportant.

« **Reply #49 on:** January 21, 2004, 12:06:11 PM »

Matt -
Be mindful that tweaking in the limited way of putting new tee boxes does very little, if anything, to alter a course. That's why I started the thread about it which (like most of my threads) slipped very quickly and unnoticed to the recesses of GCA.com, never to be heard from again.

News:

Matt_Ward

TEPaul

Matt_Ward

TEPaul

Robert Thompson

Mike_Cirba

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

Fred_C.

TEPaul

SPDB

Mike_Cirba

Mike_Cirba

SPDB

Mike_Cirba

TEPaul

TEPaul

Matt_Ward

Mike_Cirba

Tom_Ross

Mike_Cirba

SPDB