Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....

[TEPaul]

"Hole separation or lack of parallel holes was not unique or original to Crump. Several of the earlier wooded heathland courses were separated, in the main, with v.few parallel holes:  Swinley Forest, St George's Hill and Camberley Heath."

Paul;

I don't believe I said lack of parallel holes or separation of holes through triangulating a routing were unique to Crump. I simply said maybe using trees to block visibility between holes was.  

"It's likely he got the idea from Colt who had started a tree planting scheme for Sunningdale Old.  So we could blame him!"

Yeah, good idea, why don't we blame the excess tree encroachment on Colt too!    

[TEPaul]

"We all agree there is no evidence Crump ever wrote about a desire for isolation....,"

We do? I only said that as far as I know Crump never kept a diary or a written account of what he wanted to do at PVGC---he just did it. As far as I've ever known George Crump was not a chronicler of what he did, There very well may be letters in the archives in which Crump wrote to others about it. Apparently there are letters of Crump's on one subject or another in the archives and as far as I can see Warner Shelly and Jim Finegan may be the only ones who've really looked through that entire archive carefully to write their PVGC history books. Otherwise, one might think both Shelly and Jim Finegan just dreamed that idea up somewhere when they wrote about it in their PVGC histories.

"I beginning to wonder if this idea of isolation is more a legend (or a modern invention) rather than a historical fact?"

Of course you are---that's been pretty obvious for quite some time now. But you've never seen the PVGC archives, have you? You've never even seen....Oh, never mind!  

But in my opinion, the question is somewhat moot anyway. All you really have to do is look at early aerials of PVGC to see there was hole separation and visual blocking used with trees.

Why don't you just take a page out of Paul Turner's recent post and attribute the whole thing to Harry Colt? After all, to you fellows Harry Colt was the real designer of PVGC, despite only spending a week or two at the course compared to Crump's five years. Oh, I forgot, a year or so ago you implied that in your opinion Crump was simply watching the grass grow all that time as workers he was paying for completely constructed the golf course to Colt's design plans.   Clearly that's a preposterous implication!

Gene Greco:

I don't really know either why it is that everytime PVGC comes up on her this issue of trees comes up too with a few of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com's contributors.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

mucci, If you read all my threads closely enough, you will see that I have already stated that I do not believe that Mr Crump intended his hazards to be encroached by trees..try reading everything that I write

As for the left side of number 17 being encroached, i guess I have never been that far left, as it is not something I have noticed..but it may well be one of the cases I support for some tree trimming if that is the case.

With respect to being able to evaluate opinions on design...and that is all we are talking about, as none of us are more qualified than to be just opinion givers.....whilst competing, that is why they have these things called practice rounds...at which point it is the players job to evaluate the golf course.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Mr Mucci,
I failed to answer one of your question..The anwser you know already..I prefer the isolation that we now see, as it is my belief that is what Crump wanted, and it so happens to be what I prefer to see, which is why I also said I prefer current Wentworth and Sunningdale to those pictures I have seen in the past...again just my humble opinion

[TEPaul]

Paul Turner said:

“It's likely he got the idea from Colt who had started a tree planting scheme for Sunningdale Old.  So we could blame him!  
Also of interest, the course Colt worked on immediately prior to Pine Valley, Hamilton in Canada, is essentially a triangulation routing for most of the course, and has strong isolation.”

Paul:

I’d very much like to hear more about what you said there about Harry Colt and his tree-planting plan in the Heathlands as well as at Hamilton prior to his visit in May/June of 1913 to see Crump and PVGC. What do you think Colt’s purpose was with those tree-planting plans or schemes?

And secondly, I’d like to ask you to answer this question of Tom MacWood’s as well regarding what you find about Colt and his tree planting plans or schemes previous to PVGC;

“The recent thread on PV and isolation is not a case of differing opinions, unless I've misunderstood you, you have presented it as a historic fact. I'm just trying to find the documentation that supports this fact. Is it a historic fact or an assumption?”

Was Colt’s tree planting scheme in the Heathlands at Sunningdale Old and at Hamilton in Canada an historic fact or is it an assumption? Do you have the documentation that supports that fact? Did Colt write about it EXACLTY?

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

From the infomation supplied from Paul, it appears as though TP and myself should have been around some years ago when Colt and Crump wanted trees on a golf course...just when I thought we were the mad men TP !!!!!!

[TEPaul]

Michael:

I know! I'm one of those guys who would give anything to get in a time machine, grab those controls and get to various times in the past so I could actually talk to some of those guys way back then, like a George Crump. But as far as I know they haven't perfected the time machine quite yet. But when they do I'll be sure to take Tom MacWood on a ride so he may see that some things a protagonist didn't actually write about really did happen!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Wharton Palmer,

mucci, If you read all my threads closely enough, you will see that I have already stated that I do not believe that Mr Crump intended his hazards to be encroached by trees..try reading everything that I write.

I read and comprehend everything you wrote.

If a tree limb intrudes into the line of play, or impedes a swing, the limb shouldn't be pruned, the tree should be removed.  That's architecture 101.[/color]

As for the left side of number 17 being encroached, i guess I have never been that far left, as it is not something I have noticed..but it may well be one of the cases I support for some tree trimming if that is the case.

Perhaps, the next time you visit, you'll glance over, or better yet walk over, so you can see what you missed and that pruning is not the answer, tree removal is.[/color]

With respect to being able to evaluate opinions on design...and that is all we are talking about, as none of us are more qualified than to be just opinion givers.....whilst competing, that is why they have these things called practice rounds...at which point it is the players job to evaluate the golf course.

Evidently, you didn't even notice the condition on
# 17 fairway and green.  Perhaps you need to evaluate the course more carefully.

Aerials and ground level photos from circa 1922, 1925 and 1932 don't support either your, or TEPaul's theory regarding tree planting at Pine Valley.

I recognize your preference for the golf course's current look, but I wonder if your views aren't tempered by your invitational status.  And, if that's your opinion, that's okay, that's what you believe and that's what you like.

When was the first year you played at Pine Valley ?[/color]

TEPaul,

With Crump's death in 1918, one would assume that those who knew him, from the time he began Pine Valley until his untimely death that they would have carried out his work subsequent to his death, yet aerial and ground level photos circa 1922, 1925 and 1932 don't bear that out.

I'm fairly familiar with tree growth in New Jersey, and at four, seven and forteen years after his death, there doesn't appear to be a continuation of a tree planting program at Pine Valley.

And, as more and more time elapsed, as those close to Crump died off, I would suspect that fewer and fewer people were aware of Crump's intentions, or his alleged intentions.

Thus, I agree with Tom MacWood.
I know that startles you, but, I submit that someone began to plant trees after 1932 on the basis of what they perceived Crump's intent to be.  I submit that Crump's intent is manifested in photos taken within a decade of his death.

I couldn't tell you whether it was John Arthur Brown, different Superintendent's, or Ernie Ransome, but, this could easily be determined by boring core samples.  I would be especially interested in taking core samples of the trees behind # 9 and # 17 green, as I feel that these greens, as
# 2 green, were intended to be skyline greens

If the trees are 50 years old, what does that do to your theory ?  That Pine Valley waited until 36 years after his death before deciding that Crump wanted tremendous isolation ?

I think the topography and routing lend themselves to both seperation and to a degree, isolation, but nowhere to the extent that you find today.  Today, one gets touch of claustrophobia when playing the golf course, and I can't believe that was Crump's intent, especially when viewing aerial and ground level photos taken decades after his death.

And, if Pine Valley didn't have the budget they have, there is no way they could preserve and enrich their turf as the trees severely impede sunlight and air circulation, AND, with all the trouble they had with their turf, why would Crump want to create a situation that would only make it worse ?

[TEPaul]

Pat;  

Don't trouble yourself with suggesting core samples be taken to determine who and when the massive tree growth took place at PVGC. I'm very friendly with by far and away the oldest member of PVGC who's been a member quite a spell longer than anyone else! I'll be more than happy to ask him for you what transpired there in about the last 70 years.

This ultra concern over this tree issue at PVGC has really gotten preposterous. Belay that, it's gotten damn right hilarious! Why don't you guys put these efforts into solving the problem in the Middle East or something!    

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Let's look at this from a logical perspective.

Why would people familiar with the terrible turf problems that Pine Valley experienced want to plant trees that, when mature, would create problems with growing turf ?

I remember when Pine Valley tried placing metal shields down into the turf to act as a barrier to root growth from the surrounding and encroaching trees.  If I recall correctly, the metal strips were either at the rough or fairway lines.
This has to be about 20-30 or so years ago.
Just look at all the growth since then.

Add to that, the problems associated with lack of sunlight and air circulation and you would have to question any substantive tree planting program.

I don't think it's comical, I think it's a valid question and topic of discussion.

Let me ask you this.
Suppose there was a recognized problem at PV.
Would any member or guest engage in dialogue with John Arthur Brown about the problem ?

And therein lies part of the problem.

Remember, without constructive criticism, progress is impossible.

[TEPaul]

"Why would people familiar with the terrible turf problems that Pine Valley experienced want to plant trees that, when mature, would create problems with growing turf?"

Pat:

That's a good question, and the answer probably is they wouldn't want to do that but they did it anyway in the past century simply because they didn't exactly understand the problem.

Remember that man I mentioned in the post above who's the oldest member of PVGC by far? That's the very same man who I mentioned sat on our (GMGC's) master plan committee and said nothing at all for a year as we all constantly criticized the tree overgrowth at GMGC and all the problems it caused including problems to turf health.

Finally, he spoke up and said;

"I've been listening carefully to all of you complain about the tree overgrowth here and all the problems it's caused. I want you to know I was the one who as green chairman back in the 1950s had all those trees planted. We were proud of what we did because the State gave them to us for free and all we had to do is just plant the little saplings. But I want you to know we didn't understand back then the problems that you say now have been created by them and if you'd like me to go in front of the membership and tell them we didn't understand those things back then so we can more easily removed them now, I'll do it!"

I can assure you Pat, that PVGC is on top of any problems excessive shade and root growth causes to turf down there. Just this fall as I was walking off the 11th green Rick Christian and to my surprise, Dick Bator, former PVGC super and now consultant to them, and perhaps the finest agronomic remediator in the world, walked up and talked to us for a moment about that very subject. Neither of those two guys are the types that beat around the bush on the subject of agronomy and PVGC and I can assure you they feel PVGC has light and shade as it relates to the course's agronomy well under control. But the next time I see them I'll tell them that you know something about their turf that they don't know!  

By the way, it was Bator who totally and completely transformed PVGC's turf and corrected their turf problems back in the 1980s going into the Walker Cup. During the Walker Cup basically no one had seen such fine turf conditions. Bator went back to Rochester and it was shortly after that he was hired by Merion and he came back and put that course's turf into a condition they'd definitely never had or seen before.

So those things Pat are more than just us thinking about these things logically---I'm telling you what the FACTS are. That's what you've always wanted isn't it----FACTS?  

[T_MacWood]

This is an aerial that was the cover of a magazine in 1936 (18 years after Crump's death), its a little fuzzy but I think it illustrates the more open nature of the course as compared to today. A number of holes are isolated, but there also appears to be an opportunity for panaramas.  There appears to be more exposed sand as well, and none of the hazards have been overrun by tree growth. Would this be the golf course's architectural high point.

[wsmorrison]

I would say that this photo doesn't quite represent the high-water mark of the architecture at Pine Valley.  At this point, the sand faces below the 2nd and 18th greens were still washing away and in the case of the 2nd hole, parts of the green were eroding as well.  The sand faces were converted into discrete bunkers along with other methods that stabilized the slopes fronting these 2 greens.  They are aesthetically pleasing bunkers as well.

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
You prefer the grassed 2nd and 18th green complexes to the exposed sand?

[wsmorrison]

Here is a 1995 aerial of Pine Valley GC from TerraServer

[wsmorrison]

Tom MacWood,

Forgive me, but I don't see the "more open nature" in the photo you posted.  Sure, the trees have grown and the forested areas are more dense comparing the 1930s with the 1990s aerials, but the width of the fairways has never been compromised and the tree lines are basically the same.  There is greater density in the triangle formed on the left sides of 1,2 and 4, also along the left side of the first fairway on 7 and the trees have encroached on the left side of 2.  But I simply don't agree that the playability has been affected very much (I expressed where many posts ago) and the overall visibility is not significantly different after so many years.

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

The exposed sand faces on 2 and 18 didn't work.  They consistantly washed away taking green space with them.  Of course I like it better the way it is now that they are stable.  Given that the only way to fix the problem was to change the faces, I am glad they did.  And, I do like the look of the bunkering; very Flynn-like    They are not completely grassed, in fact, they have very interesting large bunker complexes.

I don't think architecture is just form, it has to function as well.

Can you imagine you and I having a conversation about a building:  

Tom Mac: "Gosh, it is such a beautiful building.  Don't you love the architecture?  It has to be the high water mark of architecture."

Wayne:  "But Tom, the building fell down.  Don't you think there was something wrong?"

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

I thought you prefer to cast yourself as something like an accurate researcher!

Before any of us begin to try to compare which era (year) may've been the "high water mark" at PVGC architecturally it would be best to pinpoint the dates some of those aerials were taken. I can do that for you (given some time) by simply going down to John Ott's house and looking at the dates of those Dallin aerials. He bought every single one of them the museum had and most, if not all, are accurately dated.

It may not be accurate for you to produce an aerial shown in some magazine in 1938 as the state of the course in 1938. I doubt that magazine got Dallin or another aerial photographer to go up and photograph specifically for the magazine, although that's certainly possible. They probably just used what they could find even if the aerial was of the course ten or more years previous.

I think Wayne and I can probably go about this another way and somewhat put a time on that aerial (at least a date after which it could not be) by determining when that fronting bunker on #2 was changed (William Flynn may've been the one who fixed this problem). As Wayne said, and I have on here a number of times before, that fronting bunker on #2 may've been impressive and cool looking but the fact is it simply did not work---it kept collapsing and at one point took the front of the green with it. The same problem was the case on the massive fronting sand bunker on #18 and that too was changed in the same way as #2.

If you, or anyone else, is seriously saying that that massive sand bunker fronting #2 (and #18) should be restored today in the name of some "architectural high water mark" or architectural purity would you mind if PVGC billed you to fix them every time they collapsed?  

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
The Dune green complexes at Pebble Beach and sandy waste areas at Shinnecock evidently didn't work either.

Today there have been technical developments that might allow the 2nd or 18th to return to their more natural exposed sand. Would you be in favor of returning to the exposed sand if that was the case?

[TEPaul]

"Wayne
The Dune green complexes at Pebble Beach and sandy waste areas at Shinnecock evidently didn't work either."

Tom MacWood:

You've got to try a bit harder to be accurate when you try to make a point on here to properly analyze these things. There was absolutely nothing about the sand waste areas that were constructed by Flynn at Shinnecock that didn't work! Where did you come up with that?

[T_MacWood]

TE
Reread my post...I said the photo appeared on the cover of a 1936 magazine, not that the picture was taken in 1936. I'll let you determine the precise date of the photo.

I might be wrong, but my impression is that all three of these features (PVGC, Pebble Beach and Shinnecock) were altered for maintenance reasons.

Wayne
The triangle is obviously less treed and more open. The 17th included the dual fairways. There are fewer trees seperating the 7th from the 6th and 8th. There isn't a solid wall of trees between 11th and 16th. There appears to be an opennness between the 12th and 15th. Do you prefer the thick trees to the exposed sand?

[wsmorrison]

"Wayne
The Dune green complexes at Pebble Beach and sandy waste areas at Shinnecock evidently didn't work either.

Today there have been technical developments that might allow the 2nd or 18th to return to their more natural exposed sand. Would you be in favor of returning to the exposed sand if that was the case?"

Tom MacWood,

I am in complete agreement with Tom Paul.  The bunker evolution at Shinnecock Hills has nothing to do with them not working.  I really don't know what you mean by that.  Flynn intended that the undulating waste areas would evolve naturally with plantings of seaside grasses into indistinct sandy waste areas.  The depression and a lack of understanding over the years contributed to maintenance practices that compromised the architectural intent.  The formal bunker surrounds and lost sandy waste areas would be better if returned to the original look.  What didn't work about the sandy waste areas?  They were changed but not due to anything to do with their functionality.

As to Pine Valley, it is subjective to determine which look is preferred, whether a natural sand bank or discrete bunker complexes.  I don't know if modern techniques could return the faces to the all sand look; those are some pretty steep slopes.  I think the bunkering looks just fine as is and since the reconstructed faces have worked so well for more than 60 years, I don't see why they shouldn't remain as is.

[wsmorrison]

"Wayne
The triangle is obviously less treed and more open. The 17th included the dual fairways. There are fewer trees seperating the 7th from the 6th and 8th. There isn't a solid wall of trees between 11th and 16th. There appears to be an opennness between the 12th and 15th. Do you prefer the thick trees to the exposed sand?"

Tom,

I spoke about the lost right fairway on 17 on a previous post. I think it would be great if it could be returned.  It might make the hole play a bit easier as the carry to this landing area could be negotiated by a majority of golfers.  This is a strategic invasion of trees as opposed to trees that block vistas.  I think where trees have compromised strategy, they should be considered first and foremost.  I think the trees on the left of the first fairway on 7 are visible on the photo you posted although they seem to have been planted fairly recently.  The remaining trees on that hole don't seem very different.  I don't see the distinction you make between 16 and 11 nor the openness between 12 and 15.  As to my preference between open views of sand and thick trees, I think Crump wanted the holes to take center stage and they are what I consider the most interesting views.  If there's a choice between open views and houses on the property, I'll take trees.  If it is a choice between open views and the road behind 14, I'll take the trees.  I would consider specifics rather than generalities.  

Ideally, I like open views on a course like Rolling Green for instance, the vistas are worth opening up as are the agronomic benefits.  Pine Valley has such wide fairways that agronomic considerations are different.  The reason PVGC had problems with the fairway turf is due to the trial and error methods of growing grass on sand.  Flynn came in and fixed that problem over a period of months in 1918 (I think).  Tree growth that would isolate holes weren't a problem.  Trees that created problems strategically and agronomically are those that encroached the play areas.  We admit there are/were problems.  The Club seems to be addressing these successfully over time.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Mr Mucci,
I do not really understand the invitational reference, I can only assume that you mean  because one's golfing ability gets you an invite to an event then all of a sudden you cannot have any of your own thoughts...strange concept..you must have me confused with somebody else !!

I feel quite comfortable the same golfing record that enabled me to recive the invite will continue to speak for itself, and that having an opinion is not a feature that will remove me from the invitation list.

With reference to the old aerials that you and macwood keep refering to, I do not see how they could possibly show fledgling trees that may have been less than ..say..3 feet tall at the time..just a thought.

I think we all agree that tree impingment when it is a problem has to be dealt with.. such as you have pointed out  to the left of number 17{I have no reson to doubt you, even though I have not noticed it} I think the only place we differ is whether we should see more land or not..and that is a matter of personal preference...I just happen to be with those who prefer Pine Valley with isolated holes than not..From what I have been told that WAS Mr Crump's original plan..but no I was not there at the time to hear him say it.....by the way I dont believe macwood was there either!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

While the photos are from two different angles, a closer look at # 17 in the 1995 aerial shows some of the "choking" of the approach corridor near the green.  Add nine years of growth to that photo and these areas become more narrow.

But, you bring up another interesting point.  The 9th green and the loss of its skyline effect.  I wonder if trees weren't planted behind # 9 green to stabilize that incline.  I also wonder if there aren't better ways to "hold" the soil on that incline, allowing for removal of those trees.

TEPaul,

You've provided some information, but not the facts.

The facts are that the tree problem has existed for some time and that the club was aware of it and sought to ameliorate it with the introduction of metal shields below ground to prevent further root growth which as you know affects the drip line, which affects trees intruding into the lines of play.

Dick Bader was an employee who receieved his marching orders from a higher authority.  While his expertise is acknowledged, that doesn't mean that he had free reign with respect to PV.

I have no vested interest in this issue, no prior policies or maintainance programs to defend or champion.  
I'm completely independent.

I again ask, why would Crump or his disciples, knowing of the  terrible turf problems, seek to exacerbate them by planting an overabundent number of dense, tall trees to block sunlight and stifle air circulation ?  Planting an abundance of tall, dense trees could not have been a plan of his.

With respect to the member you referenced.
I'm sure he's a fine gentleman.
But, that doesn't qualify him to be an outstanding green chairman.  And, anyone who plants a sapling, irrespective of its species, and doesn't understand the impact of the tree at maturity, agronomically and playability wise, is short sighted and unqualified to plant those trees in the first place.

I submit to you, that the encroaching and overwhelming tree growth was planted long after Crump's death, and was not part of any plan or directions that Crump had left behind.