TEPaul,
The additional problems are that you'd now be aiming into the treeline on the left and that the terrain in and near the newly intended DZ would kick balls to the left, into the treeline.
I don't believe that was Crump's intent.
It would seem prudent to preserve the present angle of attack, and certainly not alter it by moving the tee further to the right.
It would appear that Crump's intent was quite clear and is evidenced by the early photos of the 4th hole depicting the location of the tee, the fairway and DZ you reference.
Why make the hole an awkward dogleg, which certainly wasn't Crump's intent in design and contstruction ?
Why not create a back tee directly behind the original tee ?
While the terrain falls off precipitously, ample fill could create a back tee that conforms to Crump's design and playability intent.
Pine Valley has ample photographic evidence of Crump's design, construction and playability intent, therefore, there's NO need to interpret where a new tee should go !
Pat,
How long do you think the hole would have to be to keep the long player on top of the ridge?
You have to remember that the current tee sits well below that ridge, so it's not the normal length one associates with the distance between tee and DZ.
And, if the tee was lower than the current tee, that would somewhat mute the need for pure length.[/color]
It is apparently documented that this was Crump's intent (to have the long players on top of the ridge for their approach).
While the current tee location is also a suggestion of his intent for playing angle, I think length plus angle will increase the number of second shots played from up top as opposed to purely increased length.
I think altering the playing angle by bringing the tee further right will distort Crump's intention because it alters the interfacing of the topography represented by the ridge with the flight of the ball from a tee located further to the right.
If you'll examine photos circa 1922-1928 you'll see that the tee was very close to the 3rd green, something TEPaul references as well. Moving the 4th tee further away from the 3rd green can't be in the spirit of Crump's intent as it relates to play from the tee.
Good and well intentioned people aren't exempt from making mistakes. Constructive criticism promotes progress.[/color]
Which fully appeases his documented intent.
I would strongly disagree with that.
I think it distorts and is counter to Crump's intent.
Crump's intent is manifested in the photos of the original 4th tee, close to the 3rd green.
Moving the 4th tee further and further to the right distorts and undermines Crump's intent.[/color]
TEPaul,
I'm aware of the steep fall off behind the current tee, and the road.
Wouldn't you agree that the ideal solution would be to extend the tee back, behind the original 4th tee instead of behind the current 4th tee, or to the right of the current 4th tee ?
At what point does the shifting of the tee, dramatically changing of the angle of attack remove the hole from being a Crump hole ?
Certainly Crump had to be aware of the terrain surrounding the 4th tee, original, current and proposed.
Why do you think he chose to locate the tee where it was ?
Because it presented the hole the way HE wanted it to be presented.
These modern day interpretations are counter to his design and construction concepts.
Why not try to mirror his concepts in a modern context by extending the tee back from its original location ?
It can't be for lack of funds
As you mentioned, I recall when play was intended up the shorter right side, tempting the bunkers. A tee further to the right would do more to eliminate that play than encourage it.