Mark:

I agree with you. That one in the photo as well as the new one on #7 just never looked right at all to me because it's propping something up high in an area that falls away the other way. I call that kind of thing and that kind of look "adding an additional stern onto and above the back of an aircraft carrier." You know what those old wooden 17th and 18th century naval warships "stepped up" sterns used to look like? Same kind of thing.  

The only real way you can minimize that look is to completely surround a back tee like that with trees, bushes and vegetation. That's what they're able to do on PV's new back tee on #3 and #14. Only trouble is after some decades the trees and such get too big and too high and then you have to get them out of there for light to let grass grow. I very much like what they did recently on the JAB tee on #12 despite the fact that all the clearing out does expose it as looking like the back of a ship, but the light and openness in there is refreshing, and of course it did become necessary for the agronomy.

JES - thanks, and for that level of detail.
No, I don't mind at all; though I asked the question the way I did because my knowledge of PV is so limited that I needed to get a basic sense of its 'resistance to scoring' first, independently of asking about any lengthening.

Your answer and TE's together are very helpful. If I tried to synthesize the two, could I say:

"Length as simply length was never PV's primary defence, nor is it not now intended to be. The ongoing lengthening of PV as a means of off-setting years of technological advances aims to bring fully back into play the varied and complicated hazards and required recovery shots that have always been the primary aspect of PV's resistance to scoring".

As always, I don't want to put words in people's mouths, but is that a fairly accurate synthesis, and is it in fact true?  And if so, does the new back tee at #4 fit in with that philosophy?

Thanks
Peter        

Sully:

Posts #26 and #28 are good, really, really good. There's a lot of very fine explanation of the nuances of the course and the holes mentioned in those posts. Those posts just show that PV is a golf course that takes a lot of time and analysis to come to know really well and obviously you know it very well indeed.

I'm sure you recognize that it is one thing to come to understand a course well in the context of one's own game and in your case a very good game at that but I've got to tell you that a good deal of your understanding of that golf course had to have come from your experiences and observations caddying there. Obviously the same is very true of Archie Struthers. How else would you be able to understand the course well in the context of the other playing levels?

Your remark about the angle of the new back tee on #15 fairway is a very good one too. I've always thought that to be the case as in a way you're playing more into the "bolster" of the left to right cant of the fairway. I realize that's a bit architecturally formulaic but nevertheless it looks and feels better to me on a hole that long and that "three shot" demanding. And a very good explanation of how much the second shot sets up all kinds of third shot ramifications.

It's seems incredible and maybe sort of sacronsanct to say but I've always felt the former back tee on #15 is the only real architectural weak point on the golf course (it's just needlessly close to the 14th green), and I really do believe it Crump had lived and had time to reconsider and fool around with perhaps 14-17 the way they say he wanted to that those holes would be even better than they are.

Had he lived and had the time to do what they said he wanted to finish on #13 that would be one helluva subject for debate and discussion on here, and certainly given the fact #13 is considered by some to be one of the best par 4s in the world.

First of all, had he lived, it was probably more than possible that he may've created one of the most remarkable cape holes with #14, #15 as nessecarily a long uphill par 4, #16 as the par 5 with perhaps a semi-water carry on the third shot and #17 as a longer and more demanding par 4 than it has always been, even if the second half of #17 and the green by Crump was not much like it is now.

Could somebody please post the most recent scorecard from Pine Valley so I have some sort of understanding of what holes were lengthened from the previous 6765 yard tees?  Thanks.

Oh, and by the way...Willie Dow's reply #2 is the most accurate and observant post on this thread...even moreso than Archie coming up with that little ridge thingy...

I haven't read any of the posts on this thread, but, the issue of a back tee on # 4 or any hole brings up an interesting question.

# 4 could be described as a unique hole.
The drive from a lower tee to a high ridge that falls back down to a fairly level fairway with a series of rough and cross bunkers at the end of the first fairway presents an interesting DZ for a variety of golfers.

Some can drive to the lower, forward fairway area.
Others cannot and are faced with downhill-sidehill lies.
Some aspire to reach the plateau top of the ridge and others can't make it to the top of the ridge, leaving them a blind shot to a green that seemlessly transitions out of the fairway, a fairway and green that continue to run away from the golfer.

In examining the viability of a new tee, shouldn't Crump's intent with respect to the play of the hole be considered ?

Approaching that green from anywhere ON the ridge was always a difficult shot.

Approaching that green from the forward, lower, far side of the ridge is a relatively easy shot.

Where did Crump want the approach shot played from ?

And, did he want golfers to play irons and 3-woods off the tee in order to get to the prefered DZ ?

I think you have to examine all of those questions and others before deciding on the merits of a new back tee, and the angle of attack it presents into the ridge and land beyond.

TEPaul,

While I agree with you that a set of tee markers should always be back, I think another set of tee markers should present a reasonable and enjoyable challenge for those golfers not deemed to be of championship caliber.

Also, don't forget that 6,999 as a par 70 is a pretty fair sized golf course.

However, Pine Valley has fairways and greens that are below the level of the tee, making the golf course play shorter.

# 2, # 3 # 8, # 11, # 14, # 16 and # 18 amongst them.
In addition, some second shots are downhill, like, # 4, # 13, and # 16.  So yardage alone doesn't tell the entire story.

Pat:

You should read the posts on this thread because the answers to your questions----

"Where did Crump want the approach shot played from ?"

"And, did he want golfers to play irons and 3-woods off the tee in order to get to the prefered DZ ?"

----are all in those posts.

"I think you have to examine all of those questions and others before deciding on the merits of a new back tee, and the angle of attack it presents into the ridge and land beyond."

Those questions were all examined and the interesting thing, as with some of the other shot values on other holes that've had recent tee additions is there basically has been a return of what he wanted those holes to be, including the proposed tee addition on the 4th.

It can also be very well documented that Crump considered the "pimple" on the 18th green to be a temporary feature but for some reason you don't seem to accept that and have proposed it be restored. Why is that if you here and now think Crump's intentions should be examined if anything is to be done?  

Kalen:

Look below the tees on #4 (you can just see it to the side and behind #3 green) and if you look closely you will see a road crossing perpendicularly below it. Look just below that and you will see two dark spots (that's part of the water at the far end of the lake below the dorm, Crump's old house and the 5th tee). Just below and to the left of the left dark spot is where the new proposed tee would probably be.

Pat:

The LZ on #2 is one of the most deceptively uphill situations I've ever seen on a golf hole. It's a good 15 ft above the tee. It probably doesn't look it because the green at the end is so high.

Much longer, somewhat more left to right and quite a bit lower. You can see there'll have to be some pretty significant tree removal up along the hill on the right. Basically there's so much neat stuff they could do on the first half of that hole that would be restorative to its original. For instance there is a considerable amount of neat in-line bunkers on the left of the fairway that continue up the ridge and down the hill on the left. It's all in trees now and unseen from the tees. If they cleared it out some and exposed that old bunkering to the 4th tees it would be way cool and probably even more scary looking and it wouldn't really impact anything as dangerous because those trees up the hill and behind to the left of #2 green don't really do anything for anything except to cover up some neat old Crump bunkers on the left of the 4th.

Jim:

I went back there about a year ago with someone who should know but I can't be sure I was where they really will put it due to a variety of reasons such as the environemental people. The sensation to me was it was below the present tee back in there and that they'd have to go too far back and up the hill on the other side to get it on a level with the present tees. My recollection is it didn't seem all that much more uphill from back there so who knows. At this point it's something you pretty much have to look at in the winter to get much of a sense of what it'd be like. I may be wrong but I don't think this is all just PVs' decision at this point because it may've come up with the environmental people. They pop up in golf all the time now and for the damnedest reasons.

I'll tell you one thing that aerial of Kalen's shows and that is what a remarkable shot of Willie Dow's it must have been for him to get his tee shot all the way down the road to within SW range of the green.  

I was out at PV today.  The course was fairly soft from all the rain we've had and it was cool and breezy.  #4 played into the wind.  Our group played the back tees.  On #4, I hit my DRIVER right up the right center like I wanted, but I didn't quite catch it 100%.  I was surprised to see that my ball stayed on top the ridge.  During the summer or fall, I hit 3 wood 99% of the time to the bottom level.  I had 203 to the front edge and the pin was 23 yards on toward the back left.  I then hit a very good 4 iron to about 20 feet, but it is defintely not a shot I'd want to hit the majority of the time.  If my drive had just gone an extra 5 yards, it would have then tumbled down another 25-30 to the bottom, for a much more comfortable mid-iron.

I looked behind to again check out the area for the new intended tree.  If that project is ever started, it will be a very big undertaking.  There will have to be several trees removed just to begin.  I don't know the exact distance that would be added, but it has to be at least 35-45 yards.  The current back tee yardage is 451.  With the hole at 480+, it would become extremely difficult.  Not everyone that plays in the Crump Cup is a super long hitter, and I can think of quite a few guys that would struggle to reach the top of the ridge, and others struggle just to reach the fairway.  

If that ridgeline to the right of the current tee was cleared all the way up the hill, in order to accomodate the new tee, it would be an awesome and demanding shot.

Pat,

#2 is uphill the whole way. There are couple of downhill shots on it though, the pitch out backwards from either side of the fairway bunkers or any shot after you've hit you approach past the hole.

Jamie,

Did you have any trouble clearing the last hill on 13 since it was so cold out?  We had a couple of guys who are reasonably long (One a state am champ) have trouble getting it up over the last upslope on the left hand side (which I never even noticed before from the old back tee hitting a 3 wood)

For me, 2 is the scariest hole out there. Just kills me.

Sean,

I hit my tee shot on the line that I wanted...up the right center to avoid that hollow on the left.  I still had @ 220 into the green, with the wind in our face.  Two guys in our group pulled their tee shots slightly and didn't make it over that hollow.  Their tee shots both gathered to the left rough at the bottom, and they didn't have much of a 2nd shot.

Jamie,

How far right of the tee box is it.  I was just looking at the area right across the road behind the tee box, but yours looks like way up the hill and farther right if I am looking at it correctly?