[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Pat,

Are you suggesting that hazards on the outside of 50 - 60 yard wide fairways should be considered when discussing strategic playing angles?

Absolutely.

Architects, such as Travis, provided wide playing corridors, wide fairways, but, they felt that the penalty for missing those wide fairways should be severe, hence the need for the bunkers you see pictured.

At GCGC bunkers far removed from the centerline, together with tall fescue provide that penalty.

There's no doubt in my mind that Crump intended the same fate for balls hit wide of his fairways.

You, more then TEPaul defend the intrusion of trees into the playing corridors, stating that the corridors are wide enough, but, that wasn't the intent.  Crump never intended balls hit into the fairway, especially in the locations that provide the ideal angles of attack, to have their forward progress impeded by intervening trees. [/color]

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Mike,

My point is that Pine Valley was not built with the intention of letting you hit whatever type of bunker shot you want when you are in one.

That's shear nonsense.

The only intended impediment to advancing the ball from a bunker was the configuration of the bunker and the face of the bunker, not trees and tree limbs that prevent a backswing, a forward swing, or a blocking of the flight of the ball. [/color]

My opinion is that that tree in your way there should go because width is very attractive to me, not because you had to hit a low bunker shot out of there.

Today's low shot is tomorrow's totally blocked shot.

You need to understand the relationship between the height and angle of the facing wall of the bunker and the trajectory of the ball necessary to reach the target.

Those are the only relavant architectural factors, not tree limbs and trees that force gimmickie recoveries above and beyond what the architect created.

That you continue to defend the non-architectural impediments to having a swing and/or advancing the ball indicates that you're unable to be objective in viewing the issue.

However, I understand that. [/color]

[JESII]

It's so funny Pat that your only mode of argument is to make ancillary statements that might change the course of the conversation.

If you don't mind, let's keep this discussion to Pine Valley because I have never played Garden City, so I can't comment.

Now just one question...can you (any of you) please state one time I have defended the trees you mention?


I have not, I have simply said that your reasons for wanting them removed are bad, and I stand by that. I think the course would improve aesthetically and agronomically with a tree removal program to the outer edge of all bunker complexes. I do not think those trees should be removed because some of them impede on a bunker shot. The architects intention was to design and build a course as punishing as any other. Tell me something about Mike Sweeney's bunker shot, would it be better if that ball were in the bottom of a gigantic heel print? How about if it were in a washout line about 3 inches deep? That's how those bunkers were designed Pat, does the player have free reign to hit whatever shot he wants from those type of lies? The bunkers you guys referrence were not intended to let you recover easily, and so when you say the trees need to be cleared so recovery is more possible I say bulls**t. The trees should be cleared, but not for the reasons you state.

[Marty Bonnar]

It would be my considered position that to find onesself in this bunker would be a sh*tload better than finding onesself in the surrounding rough.



There's at least the merest possibility of a MUCH easier recovery shot from the sand than that gnarly grass.

Disclaimer: I have never visited or played Pine Valley and as such I will not be offended if my opinion is brutally and mercilessly Mucci'ed to death.

FBD.

EDIT:
In fact, that so-called Pine Valley Bunker has clearly been raked or sand-pro'ed sometime in the recent past. I'd be DEEE-LIGHTED to wander into those trees and find my orb atop those golden grains.

[James Bennett]

David Panzarasa

The devils arsehole is the most picturesque 3 square meters of what is effectively an internal out-of-bounds.  If you get in it, your only choice is an unplayable lie, unless you get the best possible lie, and then you will probably just get out to the face of the bunker (you won't clear the lip).

I was in disbelief when the talkative, poetic caddy told me that regulars who saw their 'orb' (FBD term for ball) go into the arshole immediately declared unplayable (from 150 yards away) and took the only viable option - 3 from the tee.  After two attempts from a preferred lie, I agreed with the caddies prognosis

I think they could plant a tree and a bush in that bunker, and it wouldn't be any more difficult.  That bunker is more difficult than a water hazard.  At least with a water hazard, you can take relief (with a penalty shot) at the edge of the hazard - no such option at the devils arsehole.

James B

[redanman]

James

This shot made it out on the first try.  The player asked for the yardage from the tee to the DA, he missed by a few yards and tossed his ball in to hit this shot.



This well-known gentleman has, however more mass to get behind the ball than you do.  

[James Bennett]

Bill V

I suspect the bunker is deeper now that then, perhaps another critical 6 inches deeper, making the bootom slope less forgiving.  Is that possible? That might come from all of the visitors having to try and get out of the bunker, even if they avoided it with the tee-shot.  In a match-play event I might try and get out of the DA, but never in stroke play.

Your post reminded me of one thing, about the showers at Merion and Pine Valley.  Beds may come in queen size and king size, but thos showers (cubicle and shower head combined) are emperor sized.  No matter what your size, all of you gets showered at the one time (although the Pine Valley delivers a blast down the centre that will remove any remaining hair from your scalp if you are not careful).

James B

[redanman]

Agreed, it is perhaps deeper.

Ah, the showers .....  

[David Panzarasa]

James,
 That is kind of my point about the devil's asshole. First, I personally love it where it is, and how it screws with your mentally at the tee. But that is a bunker that is so close to the green and is beyond easy to hit the ball into because where it is placed. It also is one of the hardest shots if not unfair shots on the course. That is why I am wondering what people think of that bunker there. Because many of the discussions here are trimming if not getting rid of trees because you will not have a good angle at the green or a tree limb is in your way of a clear shot. Yet, this bunker is harder to get out of then any trees, is eaier to hit INTO then hitting into any trees as well. Yet, I highly doubt most people here have a problem with that bunker. Even though they are probably not getting out of it on the first try. Kind of a contradiction to me.

[Mike Hendren]

If a man grooms a bunker in the woods with a Sandpro and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?

Mike

[TEPaul]

The bunkers to the left of #12  have always been the most ironic to me at Pine Valley because they have been totally amongst trees for so long and yet have been maintained in the same way as any other bunker on the course. On might think if bunkering is that deep in trees it would eventually be somewhat forgotten about by the maintenance dept.

But this is all part and parcel of an ongoing phenomenon of PVGC. The woods look scary as hell, unkempt, hard and iffy to recover from etc. But in fact those woods, even deep into them are a whole lot more "maintained" then most anyone realizes even if they surely don't look like it. It's just amazing to most people how their ball can sail deep into the woods at PVGC and yet it's rare as hell that a ball is lost in there. That's the reason why---eg those woods are a whole lot more maintained than most anyone realizes and it's been that way as long as I can remember. If they didn't do that one would probably almost never find his ball in there.  

[Mike_Cirba]

If a man grooms a bunker in the woods with a Sandpro and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?

Mike

Only the sound of us grumbling on GCA.  

[TEPaul]

Sully, these guys are just not understanding your point about why trees should be removed from the bunkering of PVGC but ultimately it really doesn't matter what the reason is if they remove them.

To me your point is pretty obvious. The course actually seems more intimidating to some with those bunkers showing (that aesthetic) and if one gets in them without the trees surrounding them, the inducement to try something heroic from the bunkering recovery-wise is so much more tempting than if they were surrounded by trees from which most wouldn't even think of a heroic recovery and would just chip out.

The ideal scenario is to encourage heroic recovery from those bunkers and not to discourage that in any way. The result would inevitably be that occasionally the golfer will pull off a brillant recovery out of them but the rest of the time they will probably hang themselves a lot worse than just chipping out of them from amongst the trees.

In my opinion, the ideal scenario for architecture and its maintenance generally (obviously including bunkering) is to create scenarios that produce as wide a spectrum of results as possible.

[Kirk Gill]

Has an architect ever intentionally built bunkers within a forested area?

[Mike Hendren]

None other than the Good Doctor his ownself right of the 18th fairway at Cypress Point Club? Not to mention smack-dab in the middle of the 17th fairway.  Mighty purdy though:



Mike

[Mike_Cirba]

The course actually seems more intimidating to some with those bunkers showing (that aesthetic) and if one gets in them without the trees surrounding them, the inducement to try something heroic from the bunkering recovery-wise is so much more tempting than if they were surrounded by trees from which most wouldn't even think of a heroic recovery and would just chip out.

The ideal scenario is to encourage heroic recovery from those bunkers and not to discourage that in any way. The result would inevitably be that occasionally the golfer will pull off a brillant recovery out of them but the rest of the time they will probably hang themselves a lot worse than just chipping out of them from amongst the trees.

In my opinion, the ideal scenario for architecture and its maintenance generally (obviously including bunkering) is to create scenarios that produce as wide a spectrum of results as possible.

Yep.  Bingo.

Ironically, the bunkers that are NOT in the trees are being made tamer through cleanup of the vegetation in those bunkers and general standardization, sandpros, etc.

[Marty Bonnar]

Given the obvious anatomical symbolism of said Bunker and the equally less-than-subtle symbolism of the Golf 'Hole', I should like to ask:

"Did Mr. N leave his bunker shot in the Rectum or did he make it as far as the Perineum?"

Or perhaps he 'Holed' it out?

FBD.

[Dunlop_White]

Out of all the reasons that the trees at PV should be peeled back from the outer edge of the bunkers - I think - the fact that they impede upon a bunker shot or swing is as good of a reason as any. I don't think it was the intention of any architects --then or today -- to put trees in front of bunkers thereby creating double hazards or within bunkers preventing reasonable/fair opportunities of recovery.

Colt, who did a tremendous amount of work at PV, said this about trees, much less in bunkers -- he believed that the presence of trees created too many inequities for golfers. Colt reiterated that “a tree is fluky and obnoxious form of a hazard…., because a tree can obstruct and/or stymie one ball without even affecting another ball located just a couple of feet away. According to Colt, a tree’s primary function was merely to distinguish between those players who had good or bad fortune.

Back stepping a bit, trees evidently were planted near bunkers once upon a time to prevent erosion and shifting. Understanding history, that need still exists today, so I think it would be impractical to return to a 1920's perspective. Nonetheless, a well thought out plan of judicious tree management needs to take place.

Furthermore, do you realize the destruction that will take place in these bunkers when you remove a tree with its root ball and outspeading surface roots? It will damage those bunkers and ruin many others. Perhaps, extracting some of the non-invasive low-lying vegetation and simply raising some tree canopies would be a better option. Again, a practical plan of judicious tree management should be a priority over the next number of years where all trees within each peripheral bunker are assessed seperately.

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba said;

"Ironically, the bunkers that are NOT in the trees are being made tamer through cleanup of the vegetation in those bunkers and general standardization, sandpros, etc."

This particular transition at PVGC, in my opinion, is about twice as significant as the overgrowth of trees on the golf course over the years.

There're a lot of golf courses out there that are so overgrown and encroached upon by trees and an encroached upon into the old valid strategic FAIRWY angles (that were never supposed to utilize trees). Frankly for all its trees PVGC is not and never has been one of those. I can count on one hand the areas of PVGC where trees create serious strategic considerations from fairway areas.

But PVGC was totally unique in its continuous lack of maintenance of the sand surfaces of most all its bunkering. Maybe most on here do not realize how it used to be that way up until less than ten years ago. If you hit your ball into most any bunker at PVGC up until recently your lie in the sand was just whatever you got---it could be good or it could be extremely bad, and this had zero to do with the architecture of any bunker. It really got into your head too, and most all day long--I can just guarantee that.

We do live in a world where "fairness" in golf continues to creep more and more into every area of golf and golf courses and their architecture and maintenance practices.

"Iffiness" as a general reality of golf but more importantly as a strategic reality seems to be always losing ground to "consistency". "Iffiness"---obviously another word for the reality of "luck" has become practically synonymous with "unfairness" and "consistency" has practically become synonymous with "fairness".  

It's sort of ironic it's gotten to that point too because we find so many people paying lip service to the "theory" that golf is sort of unfair just as life is, and that that's a good thing but when it comes down to actually putting that in practice on a golf course through architecture and particularly maintenance practices they seem to resist it each and every time. Obviously, the reason why they resist it is it's OK if bad luck this way happens to someone else just so long as it rarely if ever happens to me!  

But much more than the issue of tree management (or lack of it at PVGC) the issue of lack of the maintenance of their huge expanses of sand surfaces is just another one of the things that made PVGC so totally unique in the world of golf in modern times.

I might even venture to say that they have been the only great golf course in the world in the last fifty years that did NOT maintain their sand surfaces for consistency of lie, or surely did it so much more infrequently than any other great golf course.

And they were basically considered to be the #1 course in the world throughout that entire time. One might even say their unmaintained sand surfaces was a significant factor of the unique allure of the course. Maybe that fact even helped them get to and stay at #1 all these years.

I think the recent tranistion to maintaining consistency of lie in the sand surfaces at PVGC is a whole lot more significant than anything at all to do with trees down there.

I know I'll probably get in trouble for saying this but that's what I think.  

If they went back to their former practice of not maintaining consistency of lie on their sand surfaces would I be upset if my ball ended up in a large footprint down there? I probably would but, hey, that's just life at PVGC, always was, and the point is if they can pull that unique unmaintained practice off as the #1 golf course in the world, then who couldn't, shouldn't or even wouldn't?  

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

It's so funny Pat that your only mode of argument is to make ancillary statements that might change the course of the conversation.

The statements aren't ancillary, I referenced PV with GCGC.
Wide fairways with hazards beyond their lines weren't confined to GCGC, they existed at PV, but, perhaps you missed that part. [/color]

If you don't mind, let's keep this discussion to Pine Valley because I have never played Garden City, so I can't comment.


But, you have played PV, so why can't you understand the nature of the hazards beyond the wide fairway lines ?[/color]

Now just one question...can you (any of you) please state one time I have defended the trees you mention?

You defended them in discussion relating to the approach to the 17th green.  I believe that you refenced that discussion in an earlier post on this thread.

And, you defend them in your statements regarding Mike Sweeney's diliema and below[/color]

I have not, I have simply said that your reasons for wanting them removed are bad, and I stand by that. I think the course would improve aesthetically and agronomically with a tree removal program to the outer edge of all bunker complexes.
[size=4x]
I do not think those trees should be removed because some of them impede on a bunker shot. The architects intention was to design and build a course as punishing as any other.
[/size]

That's the most absurd rationalization I've ever heard.

Surely, you can't believe what you've just typed.
Reread Dunlop White's response.

Would you cite five examples where architects created bunkers and then planted trees in front of them and in them to impede swings and the forward flight of the ball ?

As I stated, that's the most absurd rationalization that I've ever heard.[/color]

Tell me something about Mike Sweeney's bunker shot, would it be better if that ball were in the bottom of a gigantic heel print?

Absolutely.
That's an unintential and temporary condition.[/color]

How about if it were in a washout line about 3 inches deep?

Absolutely,

That too is random, unintentional and a temporary condition.

The trees present a permanent unintended obstacle.[/color]

That's how those bunkers were designed Pat, does the player have free reign to hit whatever shot he wants from those type of lies?

The bunkers were DESIGNED with FOOTPRINTS IN THEM ?
Your rationalization knows no bounds.

Neither of those conditions you mention impedes the golfers swing, the trees do.  They are invasive.

That you don't understand, and defend how they came to function within the bunkers, is mind boggling.

It was BENIGN NEGLECT not architectural intent.[/color]

The bunkers you guys referrence were not intended to let you recover easily, and so when you say the trees need to be cleared so recovery is more possible I say bulls**t. The trees should be cleared, but not for the reasons you state.

Then you just don't get it.

For some reason you and another guy from the Philadelphia area have great difficulty in coming to grips with the issues at a golf course in New Jersey.

Again, could you name me an architect who deliberately planted trees in bunkers, systemically, especially greenside bunkers, so that the players swing was impeded.

Your interpretation of architectural features and their function on a "championship" or "penal" golf course are convoluted at best.[/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba said;

"Ironically, the bunkers that are NOT in the trees are being made tamer through cleanup of the vegetation in those bunkers and general standardization, sandpros, etc."

This particular transition at PVGC, in my opinion, is about twice as significant as the overgrowth of trees on the golf course over the years.

Tom,

That's correct.

Although I certainly have and will continue to bemoan a situation where trees overgrow Crump's man-made architectural features, on the whole this pales compared to the manicured neutering of the sandy waste and bunker areas.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Is it possible for you to realize that Jim Sullivan is not advocating bunkering at PVGC that is surrounded by trees? He does advocate the trees be removed from the bunkering----it's only that he's advocating that they be removed FOR A REASON OTHER THAN YOUR REASON. So what difference does it make? Both of you are advocating removing the trees that are presently amongst Mr Crump's old bunkers----as am I and have been on this site for as long as this website has been around. Yet you seem to continue to imply that we both advocate tree encroachment at PV when neither of us have EVER said anything like that.

Someone might advocate gun control because they just don't like guns. Someone else may not mind guns per se but advocates gun control because they hate to see so many people dying on the streets of our inter-cities. What difference does it make if their reasons are different for advocating gun control? The point is they are both advocating it.

You and Jim Sullivan seem to be advocating that the trees around Crump's old bunkers be removed. And you're arguing with him constantly because his reason for doing it is different than your reason?

You're either nuts or a guy who just needs to find some way to argue no matter what.  

[wsmorrison]

Here is a photo of a bunker designed with a tree that can influence shots on two holes (11 and 18).  Care to guess the course?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

Is it possible for you to realize that Jim Sullivan is not advocating bunkering at PVGC that is surrounded by trees? He does advocate the trees be removed from the bunkering----it's only that he's advocating that they be removed FOR A REASON OTHER THAN YOUR REASON. So what difference does it make? Both of you are advocating removing the trees that are presently amongst Mr Crump's old bunkers----as am I and have been on this site for as long as this website has been around.

I think it's important to understand the architectural principles involved and not simply advocate retention for the sake of preserving the punitive nature of the golf course.[/color]

Yet you seem to continue to imply that we both advocate tree encroachment at PV when neither of us have EVER said anything like that.

That's not true, JES II and I had a debate about the trees on the left side of # 17 in which he advocated their retention.[/color]

Someone might advocate gun control because they just don't like guns. Someone else may not mind guns per se but advocates gun control because they hate to see so many people dying on the streets of our inter-cities. What difference does it make if their reasons are different for advocating gun control? The point is they are both advocating it.

My reading comprehension skills remain sharp.

JES II wanted the trees retained under the guise of preserving the punitive nature of the golf course.

He stated that invasive trees and tree limbs should remain for the purpose of challenging the golfer, impeding his swing and ability to advance the ball.

Reread the posts.[/color]

You and Jim Sullivan seem to be advocating that the trees around Crump's old bunkers be removed. And you're arguing with him constantly because his reason for doing it is different than your reason?

You must have missed his post advocating retention of the trees in order to preserve the penal nature of the golf course.

You probably missed his other post where he apparently didn't find architectural merit in off fairway bunkers on wide fairways.
I tried to explain Travis's philosophy on that issue, but, since he hadn't played GCGC he didn't want to consider that particular application in a conceptual sense.[/color]

You're either nuts or a guy who just needs to find some way to argue no matter what.  

Either way, the merits of my position remain sound.[/color]

Wayne,

Merion West.

Which is older, or came first, the bunkers or the tree ?

[JESII]

Pat,

I am not certain, but pretty sure that if you grab hold of each shoulder and pull down hard you're head will come back out of your ass. Go ahead, give it a try.


Is that better? Great.


Whether your "reading comprehension skills remail sharp" or not, you've got it wrong. About #17, you've got it wrong. No argument about it, no question about it. The trees you speak of effect the left 10 feet of the fairway when playing to the left 10 feet of the green. I have no sympathy for you if you mis-hit a tee shot 20 yards from the ideal target (which is still left-center on a 50 yard wide fairway) on a 220 yard tee shot and cannot hit a direct unencumbered approach to the pin. Your argument that the land steers the ball that way is faulty based on your argument that expecting a player to hit a draw into that left pin is absurd because the ball is below the players feet. So which is it Pat, does the ground move right-to-left or left-to-right? The answer of course is both. In the right side of the fairway it moves right-to-left, and in the far left corner it moves left-to-right, sort of a funnel effect. There is no degree of firmness that would steer a ball that lands on the right-to-left portion of that fairway over to the left 10 feet of the fairway. You've got this one wrong, I promise you, perhaps someday we'll be there together and I can explain it to you, but until than let's just hang this one up.

As to the total package you're advocating, let's revisit your position in that prior thread. You and Mike Cirba argued that the trees impede on strategic angles. I disagreed. You used #17 as an example. You're wrong. I stated that there was not one shot you would TRY to play differently because of the trees. At many courses there is a calculable advantage to playing for one side of the fairway or another. Seminole is a great example of that (and also a course we both know, which helps the conversation). At Pine Valley the penalty for missing a fairway at Pine Valley is so great that the strategic advantage gained cannot possible make up for the risk of failure to hit that spot. That's why I asked you to name one hole that offers a real clear and distinct advantage to a player approaching a green from an extreme edge of the fairway as opposed to the center of the fairway. You named a couple at the time and, while I disagreed with them, we didn't spend any time on it. The fact that the center of each fairway is the target for each tee shot plays on two things; first, each and every shot at Pine Valley is a do or die in itself (isn't that a big part of the greatness?), second, the notion of strategic options being available with no trees does not hold water. Unless "strategic options" is synonymous with "get out of jail free" when you've missed a shot. This point is more where I think you're coming from, and that's the crux of our disagreement. The unmaintained bunkers Tom Paul describes support my point to you that these bunkers were not intended to allow easy escape. I understand that having a tree in your swing while in a bunker is not a great thing and I cannot think of an architect (including Crump) that would advocate that, but that's not the point I am arguing. Perhaps somehow you'll get this at some point, but strangely I doubt it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()