It's not just Mucci...Just look at the lack of discussion over the last list...it is deafening.  I think I know when it jumped but I havn't played the course and hate to possibly offend a couple of good friends.

When did the rankings jump the shark...sorry guys, it's over when Mucci can't even remember if he was a rater or not..

JakaB,

How on earth do you reach this conclusion ?

I clearly stated that I was a rater.

Perhaps you have me confused with Brad Klein.

Brad Klein,

How quickly you forget.  

I'd include "natural setting" as non-architectural, and, I'd throw landscaping in as well

Bill Vostinak,

Who called my bluff  ?

Or is this just another one of you baseless claims ?


Rich Goodale,

Thanks for coming to my defense, even if JakaB was confused with respect to who, said what.

My selective memory remains as sharp as ever.[/color]

Pat, you must have been on board before we had standards.

Absolutely.

I'm also lucky that I was accepted at college and a golf club before they had standards as well.  Timing is everything. [/color]

I don't know why "natural setting" and "landscaping" aren't architecturally related. They have everything to do with landforms, structure and context. One (setting) sets the framework for design, the other (landscaping) is a partial response.

As we sit at our desks we could agree on that, but, a golfer in the field finds it hard to filter, seperate or connect tangential and/or collateral issues from the architecture issues.[/color]

To be clear, I have no connection with Pine Valley.
Is it fair to say that you don't know any members of PV, or have friends who are members, or who have friends who have friends who are members ?  

Are you friendly with TEPaul ?   If you don't want to embarrass yourself in public, IM me with the answer to the last question.[/color]

Is it safe to assume from this last post of yours that players should be able to drive it all over the place and still have a clear, unimpeeded shot to the green?

That's an exageration, or extreme example.
It's clear that the architectural intent on the 12th hole is to lure the golfer into attempting a heroic shot.
Driving at the green and missing it by 10 yards, left or short, can't be defined as "driving it all over the place"

You should look at the aerials, circa 1925 and 1938 before dismissing the concept of restoration and eliminating the trees and scrub that's been allowed to destroy Crump's PV.[/color]

Should players not have to recover with something pretty impressive if they miss the "best" position by 15, 20 or 25 yards on a short par 4 that usually requires no more than a long iron?

Again, a review of the 1925 and 1938 aerials would answer that question for you.

You're only viewing # 12 in the narrow context of your experience with the hole.[/color]

Patrick,

In your posts #81 and #87 you imply that I mask my opinions of PV so as not to offend any of my friends who may be members there. This implication unfortunately identifies your view on such things. It's either exuberant praise or harsh criticism from you and I disagree with both forms of expression. I would have no problem speaking to any number of their members about my thoughts, but it's not my place nor yours. For you to say they have "destroyed Crump's Pine Valley" would bother me more if it were not the 500th time you've said it in the last year and a half, call me immune. Take a more rational approach to voicing your opinions and perhaps you will be able to view those of others in a more sincere light.

I merely asked a question, YOU drew the conclusions, erroneous as they are.

Now, as to the golf course, do you really think Crump thought anyone was going to drive the 12th green?

YES

Do you really think he intended for recovery from sand to be a big part of ones game down there considering the type of hazards he created?

Yes.

Did you review the 1925 Aerials ?

If you didn't then there's no need to proceed with the discussion since you'll not have an understanding of the configuration of the hole, the green and its hazards as it was originally designed.

When did they start not-maintaining the bunkers?

What you, and perhaps others fail to understand is that there's a huge difference between scheduled maintainance practices and abandoning maintainance practices.
When you can differentiate the two, perhaps you'll understand the context of my posts.

Was it at inception?

No.

In my above post when I referrenced missing a target with a long iron off the tee by 15 - 25 yards I was referring to #17, not #12.

The tee at # 17 is aligned such that a tee shot favors the left side, and a draw or hook will certainly find that side of the fairway, aided by the cant of the land on the right side of the fairway.

A review of pages 228 and 229 in Finegan's book on Pine Valley will provide you with the confirming view from the tee.

In addition, the picture in the lower right quadrant of page 229 reflects the intrusion of pine limbs into the playing corridors when one is approaching the green, and, that picture appears to be taken from the center of the fairway.
Imagine the view from the far left side of the fairway.

Much of the green is blocked by the trees for approaching shots.

In the event that you don't have a copy of the book, or if you don't have a copy of Geoff Shackelford's book, go to Google Earth, and you'll see, albeit from a difficult angle, the problem golfers in the left side of the fairway face.

It's incontravertible, approaches from the left side of the fairway are impeded by the intrusion of pine trees.

The aerial, circa 1925 reflects the approach as totally unobstructed.

It was a reply to your issue with the obstructed view from the left corner and the fact they the hole has changed.

Please remember my earlier posts Pat, some tree work will absolutely help the aesthetics, perhaps even the turf conditions (I'm no expert though) but it will have very little effect on the golf shots you'll play.

That's not true.

Please, please look at the aerials circa 1925 and 1938, you'll be enlightened.

What exactly is the point of rewriting such a list every year?

The only reasons for the ranking to ever change are:

1.  Major renovation work, which should not be happening that much on the best golf courses in America (in my opinion);

2.  Changes in conditioning, which a bunch of panelists should not be judging, if it should count for anything to begin with; or

3.  Changes in the makeup of the panel, whose personal biases are reflected in the final list -- but why pay attention to that?


Or could it be #4 -- selling magazines?

Personally I wouldn't vote for either Pine Valley or Cypress Point as #1, but I'm surprised they were close enough to switch places, and I wonder why it happened.  The only change I know of at either course is the lengthening at Pine Valley -- was that deemed to be a negative?

Mike and Pat,

I looked at Shackleford's book last night. What was interesting to me about those photos and this conversation is two-fold; All of the areas we are discussing as being over-treed today were planted in 1925, and 1925 is something like 7 years after Crump died.

Where did you get this information from.
Those areas were NEVER planted.
The 1938 photos would seem to confirm that.[/color]

With the exception of the right fairway on #17 (which looks cool but does not necessarily improve the hole, at least conceptually to me) which shots do you think you'd play differently if the course looked exactly like that as opposed to today?

Almost every shot from a bunker.
I wouldn't have to play laterally around trees and scrub, I could play toward the hole.

I'd play my drives closer to the left side of the fairway on
# 12 and closer to the right side of # 17.[/color]

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on March 07, 2006, 07:40:27 PM

Quote from: JES II on March 07, 2006, 02:55:59 PM

Mike and Pat,

I looked at Shackleford's book last night. What was interesting to me about those photos and this conversation is two-fold; All of the areas we are discussing as being over-treed today were planted in 1925, and 1925 is something like 7 years after Crump died.

Where did you get this information from.
Those areas were NEVER planted.
The 1938 photos would seem to confirm that.
[/color]
Pat - Look at the pictures Mike referrenced in Geoff Shacklefords book. I believe pages 53 and 66 showed very clear and interesting overhead views.

There are small trees growing in almost all of the areas we have discussed. What I think you ought to find interesting is that 7 years after Crump died there was massive tree plantings. [/color]

What on earth are you looking at ?
NO trees were planted in bunkers.
Look again at hole # 12.

In addition, photos from 1938 don't show any trees in bunkers or interfering with bunker play on # 12.[/color]

How do you feel about that? [/color]

See my above response.[/color]

Tom Paul frequently referrences a tree planting program that may have included 20,000 or more trees in the late 20's and early 30's.[/color]

Those trees were planted at the perimeter of the holes NOT IN the bunkers[/color]

With the exception of the right fairway on #17 (which looks cool but does not necessarily improve the hole, at least conceptually to me) which shots do you think you'd play differently if the course looked exactly like that as opposed to today?

Almost every shot from a bunker.
I wouldn't have to play laterally around trees and scrub, I could play toward the hole.[/color]

I sincerely challenge your earlier intimations that full recoveries from these waste areas was to be Crump's intent. Please do as you so frequently ask of others, and substantiate that claim.[/color]

JES II, you can't be that obtuse.
Look at the photos from 1917 to 1925.
Do you see any trees growing IN bunkers, or between fairway bunkers and the green ?   Then look at the photos from 1938.
Do you see any trees growing out of bunkers ?
Do you see any trees impeding recovery from a bunker to the green ?   I"ll save you the time and exercise.  NO, You don't.
Therefore, its safe to say that Crump never intended to have trees growing out of fairway and greenside bunkers and that he never intended to have recovery from same impeded by intervening trees.[/color]


I'd play my drives closer to the left side of the fairway on
# 12 and closer to the right side of # 17.[/color]

As to #12, to what advantage? You are a good player, but I doubt you are driving the green IN THE AIR. As to 317, assuming you are speaking of the old right fairway that is so clear in those photos, it's very clear to me why that area was let go from a playability perspective, IT WAS TOO EASY, and this is Pine Valley. Remember the initial model, a championship course built to challenge the very best players in the world.[/color]

Why is it necessary to drive the ball 317 in the air ?

If the fairways are fast and firm,  a nice draw down the left side can leave me with a routine L-Wedge or bump and run into the green.  A little helping wind might even get my ball near the putting surface.

It's also important to note that not everyone plays the back tees, and framing every point solely in the context of the back tees excludes at least 50 % of the interfacing with the architecture.[/color]

Patrick,

Please remember I have said a few times through here that the course would benefit from a tree removal program to the outer extension of all bunkers. I believe that. My argument is against the loss of playing angles.

Please do tell us how Crump intended these hazards were intended to be maintained and when and why that was not followed though.

It's fairly simple.
He intended the fairway bunkers, such as the row that exist on the left side of # 12 to be maintained as fairway bunkers, not forests.

As to why benign neglect set in, my guesses are:
lack of interest, knowledge, complacency or an infatuation with trees.

When it happened is a matter of the photographic record.

The fact that it hasn't been rectified is puzzling.[/color]