[Mike_Cirba]

Also, the sand pro work in the sandy waste areas is HORRENDOUS and is starting to look like a bad modern imitation of Pine Valley.  

The areas have lost much of their randomness, simply because the "sand areas" have to be wide enough to drive a friggin tractor through them, making them look like Daliesque versions of their former selves.

[Mike_Cirba]

Finally, we talk in here often about the joys of restoration...returning a course to its former architectural heritage and glory.

Well folks, I believe it's time for Pine Valley to do a restoration.

That might seem harsh, but it's getting awfully damn close to losing a good bit of what made it great and UNIQUE in the first place.  And that's the simple reality!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Finally, we talk in here often about the joys of restoration...returning a course to its former architectural heritage and glory.

Well folks, I believe it's time for Pine Valley to do a restoration.

That might seem harsh, but it's getting awfully damn close to losing a good bit of what made it great and UNIQUE in the first place.  And that's the simple reality!

Mike,

I've maintained that for years.

Clearing the trees can't be viewed in a select sense, it's a global issue, the golf course has been compromised by the invasive growth that's been unchecked over the years.

One only has to look at the aerials in the clubhouse and in Geoff Shackelford's book, "The Golden Age of Golf Design" to see how truely magnificent the golf course was before trees were indiscriminately allowed to invade the golf course.

All too often, Pine Valley gets a pass on what I'd call eiither benign neglect or blatant negligence.  They should know better, they're "golfers", steeped in a great tradition at one of the great golf courses in the world.

For all the bashing that ANGC gets on this site, PV has been annointed with the status of "MFN", and as such, has gotten a pass, when it should be as equally criticized as ANGC.

Is benign neglect a form of being misguided ?

I think it's a wonderful golf course, which could benefit from a restoration of sorts, starting with the 18th green and systemic tree clearing.[/color]

[BCrosby]

Pat is on the money.

It's shocking to see mature pines growing out of the middle of bunkers to the left of the 4th, 12th, 13th and the right of the 17th fairways. I'm sure there are others I missed.

That shouldn't be allowed to happen on a course with the architectural pedigree of PV.

Bob

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

I'd agree that the original pictures of a largely barren Pine Valley look terrific, but I also believe that it would be very easy to accomplish both George Crump's purported desire for "splendid isolation" as well as return the course to his original playability, wider vistas, natural ruggedness, and strategic options.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Oops...forgot a couple.

Left of 4, as Bob mentions.

Return the skyline green on #9...how terrific would that be?!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Let me address two points you raised.

The first is the concept of "radical"

Answer me this.
If the feature or features were so radical, why did everyone want to join the golf course ?

This isn't a question to be viewed solely in the context of PV, it's a question I ask of many members who are new to a club, that want to change the club.

What was it that attracted them to the club in the first place ?

Obviously, they liked the club just the way it was when they sought to join it.   But, now that they're members, the first thing that they want to do is change the club, eliminate the radicalness, eliminate the features that negatively impact THEIR game.

John Arthur Brown ran a tight ship, but, he knew little about architecture, and removing a design element, consciously, deliberately designed and constructed by Crump was a mistake, a mistake that should be rectified.

The second issue deals with the trees and your erroneous beliefs that serve to defend the status quo.

Pine Valley opened for play in 1918.

All one has to do is look at the photos on pages 55-65 in Geoff Shackelford's book, "The Golden Age of Golf Design", circa 1922 to 1938, four and twenty years after opening day, to see how the course was intended to look and play.

One only has to look at page 55 to see what has been lost to neglect over the years.  Yet, in 1925, seperation, isolation between holes is clearly achieved, topographicallly and through the existing trees.

When you're ball rests in the far left side of the 17th fairway Crump never intended that the flight of your ball should be impeded by intervening invasive tree growth.  Yet, I'm sure you'll defend the club's policies for permiting that to occur.

The beauty and definition of the bunkers in the 1925 photos is mind boggling.   Most have been lost to trees, shrubs and scrub.

Yet, Dunlop White posts a photo of invasive tree growth in an area that I previously mentioned and rather than support my position, you want to make token efforts to prune or remove selective trees and bushes, completely ignoring the systemic problem that's been allowed to become invasive to Crump's design principles and lines of play, over the years.

Pine Valley should remember that eternal vigilance is the price of greatness, and somebody's been sleeping at the switch for a long, long time.

I wonder how much of their agronomic problems are related to poor air circulation and shade ?

I never thought that I would see PV having to use electric fans on their greens.

Now you tell me, should they remove the invasive trees, or use more electric fans ?

[wsmorrison]

Mike,

Pine Valley is extraordinary.  But because of its uniqueness and historical place in Philadelphia and American golf it doesn't merit a pass on its shortcomings as they are maintenance related and not architectural.

I agree that Pine Valley needs a long range restoration and master plan.  For all we know they may already have one likely done by Tom Fazio.  If so, I think it needs to be revised or started all over again.  Some of the recent work is outstanding such as tees on 7 and 18 and also uncovering most of the coffin bunkers on the left side of 2.  Other work such as the new tee on 14 is so out of place in the look and too high in terms of functionality that it detracts from the hole.

In a general sense, the sandpros should be sold and never replaced.  The former undulating sandy waste with natural vegetation helped define what was different about Pine Valley.  The loss of aesthetics and playability is a serious issue.  The groomed look of these bunkers, even ones out of play is a sorry sight if you knew what it used to look like with natural vegetation and the iffiness of the lies.  Going into the sand hazards used to have a sense of anxiousness wondering what kind of lie you'd have.  Unlike the PGA tour where they're hoping to get in the bunkers, you didn't feel that way around the old Pine Valley--it could easily be more penal than being in the rough but it could also be a nice lie at times.  The variety and iffiness was a great feature.  Now, any good player would welcome being in a greenside bunker and many fairway bunkers are no longer scary.  

If they're going to keep the sandpros, some of the guys running the sandpros need to do a better job.  The exits are evident due to the sand flowing out of the bunkers; for instance the round bunker short and right of 11 green has sand drifting out and a ramp-like feature as a result of sandpro entrance and egress.  That bunker is really out of place and has a raised margin on the leading side.  I'll get back to this.

I like Tom Paul's philosophy regarding the trees affecting angles of play and obscuring hazards.  Mike seems to concur.

Hole 1
I agree, a few trees on the right need to come out.

Hole 2
I would consider cutting back some of the trees behind the hole to create more of a skyline green if possible.

Hole 3
Consider cutting down the line of trees on the left between the sandy waste and the green as well as trees directly behind the green.

Hole 4
Expose the bunkers on the left side of the fairway currently among trees.  There are some pretty interesting bunker complexes in there.

Hole 5
Trim back the tree line behind and on the left rear of the green.

Hole 6
Trim the trees back by the first discreet bunker on the right after the turn.  This should open the view from the tee more and tempt players to take a more aggressive line to the green.

Hole 7
Trim back the trees on the right before the carry bunker in front of the green.

Hole 8
Nothing

Hole 9
Nothing except maybe restoring the skyline effect.  I like the added bunkers on the right.

Hole 10
Consider closer cutting on the front of the green so that balls can spin off the green down the slope and perhaps into the DA bunker.

Hole 11
Make the formalized bunkers on the right one large undulating sandy waste area.  The circular bunker looks out of place on the site and should be the beginning of the sandy waste area.

Hole 12
Tom Paul first showed me this and Mike and I spoke of this on Sunday.  There is a fascinating bunker and mound complex completely engulfed by pine trees.  This is problematic in two ways.  The first, it obscures the view from the tee to the green undermining the line of instinct.  This line of instinct is right over a bunker that would surely influence most guests to try and go over while the outside of the dogleg remains the ideal approach.  Secondly the trees obscure one of the great hazard features on the hole, the undulating sandy waste between the tee and green.  This is a classic Flynn short par 4 (it may have been built by Flynn) like the original 4th at Lancaster CC (NLE) which is contemporary with this hole at PVGC and the later 1st at Philadelphia Country Club.  If Flynn had a template hole this is it.  As Mike said, taking the trees all the way left to the ridgeline is necessary.

Hole 13
The world-famous hazard along the left of this hole is mostly obscured on the approach shot.  It would be an enhanced effect if much of the hazard were once again visible.  Trimming the tree line back to the left would make this hazard once again be in full view to influence the approach to the left or raise the fear factor for those challenging the hazard.

Hole 14
Trees have been cleared on the right, it doesn't appear that they were to the left.  As Mike said, it would be a more stunning visual to have this whole scene opened up more.  The middle tee and the rear tee should each be lowered.  The middle by 3-4 feet and the rear by more than that.  The rear tee looks too artificial in such a natural setting.  Both tees can be lowered and still show much of the fronting pond.

Hole 15
The evergreens on the right hill short of the green should be long gone.  Maybe the narrowed perspective is interesting on such a long wide hole but I don't think it works well.  There should be some clearance up the hill on the left to better expose the bunkers.  I don't know why Alison did not like this hole, I think it is excellent.

Hole 16
Nothing.  One of the great natural greens in the world.

Hole 17
If the alternate fairway were constructed on the right, it would give a better view of the green as it is elevated.  It doesn't seem like the green works from that angle though as it slopes right to left.  Trees would have to be cut back and expose the fairway and the lost bunkering deep in the woods.  I like the added options with an alternate fairway on this short hole.

Hole 18
Nothing.  It may be worthwhile looking into constructing the roll that Crump apparently wanted to penalize a slice onto the large green.  With the green speeds today I think the slopes of the green seem to me to be enough of an influence.  With the restoration of the length of the approach shot, I feel hitting the correct portion of the green is hard enough once again.  But since Crump wanted it, it sure is worth taking a hard look at.

Why don't they just put a horseshoe in there for all you Raynor fans?  Its bound to make for interesting putting despite its dreadfully manufactured and unnatural appearance.  I'm not serious.  To me the folly of such an unnatural feature, despite its playability is so evident but not to a majority on this site.

I hope no offense is taken by these sorts of critique.  I love Pine Valley.  The course is a national treasure and the membership its respectful stewards.  Tree management where angles of sight and play and where hazards are obscured is really all that is necessary to reach the highest potential.

[Dunlop_White]

Not to overdo Mike Cirba's hole-by-hole account, but there is a canopy of foliage covering a few long narrow bunkers in the right approach of Hole 6 as well. I maintain that if you'll walk into the woods most anywhere on the course, you'll find lost peripheral bunkers. To remove much of this stuff is an absolute lay-up from a tree management standpoint. As I understand, Gordon Brewer defers to Fazio though.

[Mike_Cirba]

Wayne,

I'd agree with everything you said.  I wish I had more time to elaborate but your post says it all..

[mike_malone]

 The influence of Pine Valley in the Philly area can hardly be overstated. If they do a tree management program it would be great for all other efforts in the area.

[Dunlop_White]

This image does not reveal how invasive the overgrowth is to the right of hole 2.




Left woods...hole 13

[wsmorrison]

Thanks, Mike.  It was a pleasure to walk the course with you the other day.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Patrick
Just had the chance to read your question...
I like the look of the new tee shot on 18, I think it is architecturally brillaint with the modern equipment in mind and sets up a new look for the hole.
Despite the carry factor, I think it actaully sets up easier than the old tee, because the new tee defines the shape of the teeshot, where as the old tee left you wondering what type of shot you wanted to play.
However, any "advantage" that the new look may give the player, is taken away by the increased length of the second shot..which is now a lot more difficult.

I have got to think that Crump would love the new tee, in my opinion clearly the best of the new tees, as it really frames the hole better than the old tee...the same alas cannot be said of # 14..but I have 100% faith in the powers of PV and this to will be taken care of.....

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

In addition to what you recommended for tree removal at PVGC (which is all the same recommendations I made on here for about the last five years) and if they want to do what Crump intended down there they'd also remove a good deal of trees all along the right side of #6 so the player could get a peak at the green from the tee. They should also remove trees on both sides of the hole on #5. But the mother of all tree removal projects down there would be for them to do what Crump wanted to do on #13. He actually wanted the golfer to be able to see the flag from about where the new back tee is on #13!! Think about that. That would require removing trees from the tee all the way to the green all along the left to the tune of about 50 or more yards deep. Few people realize how much space there is between the left side of #13 and the left side of #15. It could be up to 150 yards. Not only that but anyone can see from the old aerials that Crump actually had all that area along #13 cleared just for that purpose. Both Smith and Carr mentioned that was his purpose---eg so the golfer on the 13th tee could get a peak at the flag on the green!! Looking at that great hole today it's hard to imagine that would even be possible (few realize how steep the left side amongst the trees really is on #13). The entire architectural point of that is no golfer could even think about actually hitting the ball on that line but just the visibility of the flag could sure screw up his concentration regarding where he actually does need to hit his drive!!

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba:

In addition to what you recommended for tree removal at PVGC (which is all the same recommendations I made on here for about the last five years) and if they want to do what Crump intended down there they'd also remove a good deal of trees all along the right side of #6 so the player could get a peak at the green from the tee. They should also remove trees on both sides of the hole on #5. But the mother of all tree removal projects down there would be for them to do what Crump wanted to do on #13. He actually wanted the golfer to be able to see the flag from about where the new back tee is on #13!! Think about that. That would require removing trees from the tee all the way to the green all along the left to the tune of about 50 or more yards deep. Few people realize how much space there is between the left side of #13 and the left side of #15. It could be up to 150 yards. Not only that but anyone can see from the old aerials that Crump actually had all that area along #13 cleared just for that purpose. Both Smith and Carr mentioned that was his purpose---eg so the golfer on the 13th tee could get a peak at the flag on the green!! Looking at that great hole today it's hard to imagine that would even be possible (few realize how steep the left side amongst the trees really is on #13). The entire architectural point of that is no golfer could even think about actually hitting the ball on that line but just the visibility of the flag could sure screw up his concentration regarding where he actually does need to hit his drive!!

Tom,

That would be pretty amazing!  I'm all for it and I think we also agree that the idea of "splendid isolation" and what we are proposing here aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

Instead, I believe it's a formula for restoring the course to even greater future glory.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

MWP,

Don't you find that the new tee counters the intended influence of the canted fairway ?

That fairway slopes from high left to low right.

Now, with a tee shot coming from the right, the fairway acts as a backstop to a draw or a turbo boost to a fade, rather than feeding the ball to trouble and an inferior angle of attack from the bottom right side.

Dunlop White,

I've had my backswing impeded by invasive branches on # 13 and elsewhere.

Your photos are in such conflict with the photos taken circa 1922-1938, four and twenty years after the golf course opened.

The picture on page 55 of Geoff Shackelford's book, "The Golden Age of Golf Design" shows the incredible attention to detail that Crump put into those bunkers, location wise and construction wise, and the thought of them being overrun and covered up by trees, shrubs and scrub is alien to everything he did at PV.

I don't understand why PV hasn't embarked upon a restoration effort to remove the invasive growth that's occured over the years.

One would think, that with the incredibly successful work done at NGLA and Shinnecock that similar work would have already been embarked upon at PV.

I'd be curious to hear their response to, or position on the issue.

[JESII]

MWP,

Don't you find that the new tee counters the intended influence of the canted fairway ?

That fairway slopes from high left to low right.

Now, with a tee shot coming from the right, the fairway acts as a backstop to a draw or a turbo boost to a fade, rather than feeding the ball to trouble and an inferior angle of attack from the bottom right side.

Pat,

the ideal approach angle is from the right, it lets you hit into the slope on the green as opposed to down it.

I do agree that the tee angle on the right might make it easier to hit the fairway, but the hole got to where it was not a driver very frequently so the solution is a good one in my opinion.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

How many times am I going to have to tell you the realities of the trees at PVGC today versus those early photographs of the course in the 1920s? I think I've mentioned this about a dozen times over the years on here but it just seems to go in one ear and out the other or you just refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

Let me repeat it one more time. The trees that you see in those early photos (many of the same trees that're there today) are ALL about ten times higher and larger today than they were back then!! Do you have any idea what that means?? Apparently not!

What it means is there is no way to return the golf course to the look it had in the 1920s when those trees that existed back then were about ten times shorter and smaller than they are today.

NOW, that DOES NOT mean that there were NOT many additional trees that were either planted or allowed to grow up INSIDE the playable lines of the way that course was designed! Interestingly that can be easily seen today by simple looking at where all the bunkers on the sides of the holes were and STILL ARE and REMOVING all those trees that have grown up in THOSE areas in the ensuing 80-90 years and leaving the rest that were very small once but are no longer small.

The only possible way to return the look of that golf course tree-wise to the way it looked in the 1920s would be to clear cut the ENTIRE site of about 50,000-60,000 trees and denude the whole place and replant it with about 40,000 trees that are the size of the original trees you see in those early photos.

Now, Pat, does that sound like a feasible and intelligent thing to do to return that golf course to the exact look tree-wise of the way it was in the 1920s?

Of course not. The best prescription, as I've been saying on here for years now, is to simply remove all the trees that have grown up within the original bunkering and within any shot angles out of that original bunkering and designed sand waste areas on that course over the decades.

I'll find the last post I made in the last six months or so and on a HOLE BY HOLE basis that would best fulfill that prescription. It's exactly the same as what Mike Cirba just said except I went farther on a number of the holes and all in the vein of what Crump wanted to do that's part of the record.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

The 18th green is essentially a punchbowl green.

Hitting from a higher elevation is almost universally preferable to hitting from a lower elevation.

In addition, the green is rather large and there is a little frontage that allows for shots just short of the green to run to the green.

The results of a slice and a hook on the drive are somewhat muted by the new angle of attack from the back tee

[ForkaB]

I bet if all you raters out there put your money where your mouths are and bumped PV down to 5 or 6 in your Top 100, they'd start revving up those chain saws tomorrow.

Great pictures, Dunlop.  No need to worry about the disappearing rain forests in Brazil when they are apparently thriving in New Jersey......

[JESII]

Patrick,

On your first point; it is only a punchbowl on three sides, the right side is not raised hence the slight disadvantage to being on the left side of the fairway hitting towards that right side of the green.

second point; agreed, but you left the word almost there and this is one of those instances where I think it is not but only because of the reason I state above.

third point; so what.

fourth point; You'll have to explain to me how the effects of a slice are muted by the tee angle.

Is there any room in this argument for the fact that the hole is some 30 or 40 yards longer from a significantly lower elevation thereby demanding a much more powerful / aggressive tee shot?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Your statement couldn't be further from the facts.

Please, take a careful look at pages 55-65 in Geoff's book.

Trees don't exist in a great many areas.

Just look at the corner of the dogleg on the 1st hole.
It's pure sand, not pure trees as it is today.

Look at page 54, the 2nd hole.

Look at page 59 & 60, the 10th hole.

Please look carefully at page 62, the 14th hole.

And then, look at page 63, taken in 1938, twenty years after the golf course opened to see how far removed the trees are from the 15th green.

Also note the fairway bunker line on # 16 and the absence of rows of fancy plants lining the edge of that bunker.

You can continue to keep your head in the sand by claiming that todays trees are the same trees from 1918, 1922, 1925 and 1938, or you can come to grips with reality and know that the golf course has been overrun by invasive tree growth and plantings over the years, and that the club needs to embark upon a serious, global, tree removal program.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I'll be interested in seeing it.  I didn't mean to glom on your ideas...simply throwing some thoughts out based on my visit this past weekend.

Rich,

I think #2 would do it.  

[TEPaul]

The drive angle from the new back tee on #18 is definitely no easier than from the old back tee. If anything the new back tee angle is more demanding. One of the problems with a few of the new back tees is they really do demand that in some cases the golfer carry the ball (in some condtions) just about 275 in the air, and that's a lot for even some of the Crump Cup competitors. I was talking to a Crump Cup competitor from Oakmont at the Lesley Cup on Sunday and he said he can no longer make a few of those new carries---in some conditions. This may get to be a bit of a problem as failing to make the carry to the fairway on some of those holes with their best drives for some current and future Crump Cup competitor is what may be described as a bit of an architectural DISCONNECT---at least conceptually! According to John Ott the course wasn't really designed with any totally FORCED carries of much more than about 175 yards and if they've added some totally forced carries today that may be effectivly 275 yards that's an awful lot---perhaps too much even given the fact of modern technology.

Effectively the carry out of the quarry on #18 at Merion today with the new back tee is about 250-255 and even Nick Faldo said that in adverse conditions that totally forced carry is one even about 10-15% of tour pros could not make.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()