[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

You're 1000 % correct.

As long as benign neglect is rewarded, what's the incentive to improve the golf course.

TEPaul,

Your response is one of extremes.
You advocate leaving the golf course as it is, save for a few cursory cut backs, versus embarking upon a serious tree removal program.

With their budget, the number of trees removed isn't the issue.

It's the concept, not the quantification.

The issue is:  Architecturally, should the trees, bushes and scrub be removed to have the golf course more closely resemble Crump's original intent as manifested by photos of the golf course circa 1918 through 1928 or so ?

One look at the old photos, versus today's golf course should provide a universal answer.

Only the remaining members of the flat earth society could argue elsewise.   By the way, weren't you a founding member of that society ?

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Patrick
I think with the added length, the new "advantage" the player gets from the angle of the tee shot, just improves the hole.
Does it make it easier, maybe, but it also brings the trouble on the right side closer to the player..thus in my opinion not aiding the slicer at all but hindering him even more than before.
Visually it is just more spectacular than the old tee, the visual of the slight dogleg is much more appealing than the old more straight forward view.

As I said earlier I really think it amkes the second shot more difficult, simply because of the club that is now in your hand.

[TEPaul]

"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."

Patrick:

For Christ's sake, I've been looking at the photos in GeoffShac's book for about ten years now. And much more revealing than that I've analyzed ALL the DALLIN aerials of the golf course from the early 1920s to around 1939. About 7-8 years ago I found that the Hagley had over 20 aerials of PVGC in those years (probably the most numerous collection of aerials of any single golf course in the entire Dallin Collection) and that apparently the club was not aware of perhaps 18-19 of them. I told John Ott about them and about 7-8 years ago he went down there and bought all of them.

It also appears possible that there may be a series of aerial photos of PVGC that even precede the Dallin Collection (1924-1939). They may be from the Curtiss Aircraft Co and may be as early as before Crump died (1918). There is one of basically the first hole that's on the cover of an early golf magazine that I think may be from 1917 (before Crump died).

But what I keep telling you and you apparently refuse to notice or acknowledge is that there were a number of areas of that course that were cleared by Crump for proposed holes that were never used (Crump did that because first and foremost he designed the holes of that course via constant shot testing with Govan). Those areas appear on some of the early aerials. I can go through what those areas alll are and were on a hole by hole basis if you'd like but I've already done that on here about half a dozen times and you just seem to totally miss it or you refuse to acknowledge it, or understand the significance of it.

If one wants to really analyze the tree situation there today vs what it once was one needs to have a bit more of a comprehensive understanding of the evolution of the creation of that golf course than apparently you do.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

I think you'll find that the right side of the 18th green does cant inward toward the center.  Certainly not as steep as the left side, but, nonetheless, a punchbowl green.

Regarding my fourth point, because the incline of the fairway stops a hook and directs a slice toward the green.

As to that addition of length, for the longer hitters it returns some of the shot values when approaching the green.

MWP,

I'd disagree with you because you're hitting away from the trouble, not toward it, as you are from the old tee.

Adding length to counter today's distances is in keeping with the theory of elasticity.

However, when angles of attack are altered to achieve that offset they can detract from the architectural merits and intent of the hole and how it interfaces with a golfer's game.

Have you ever noticed that only the back tees have their angles of attack altered, never the members or ladies tees.
Why is that ?  It's because given their druthers, it's best to preserve the architectural values and merits of the hole as the original* architect's intended them, and that the only alternative in some cases, due to land lock situations, is to change the angle of attack in order to gain more distance, even if it detracts from the architectural merit and values created by the original* designer.

But, let's not gild the lilly.

If the 17th green wasn't in it's location and there was room to take # 18 tee straight back as far as you wanted, would they have done that or created the present tee on the right side ?

I maintain that the new 18th tee is architecture by default, not preference.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I'm objective in my views.

I know what the golf course is like, I've been playing it for forty years.

I also know invasive tree growth when I see it.

For you to defend trees, shrubs and scrub, literally swallowing and eradicating Crump's bunkers is mind boggling.

Do you think he designed and built them with the intend that they should remain hidden underneath the canopy of trees, shrubs and scrub.

If you're going to look at pictures, open your eyes.

Do you really believe he intended the elbow on # 1, which was a masssive sand filled bunker, to be a forest ?

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Standing on the new back tee of #18 today a golfer feels a lot more like he almost needs to hit something of a fade compared to the original back tee. I don't know about you but I have a feeling that most any player today when he knows he has to carry the ball 250 in the air (to get over the junk and to the beginning of the fairway) might feel he wants to hit something OTHER than a slight fade!  

So yes, even though the new angle from the new back tee is a bit of a bolster on the angle of that fairway it's a far more demanding tee shot than it ever used to be.

One time I was dormie on Holtgreive standing on that tee and he took out a driver and hit a massive draw that looked like it started almost at the railroad tracks before curving back left into the fairway. Today a player could not possibly hit a shot like that from the new back tee.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Agreed, but, you're fogetting, in those days the ball had a great deal of movement built into it. Today, everything goes straighter.  Hence big curves amongst good players are nothing more than a memory.

But, more importantly, how did the match end ?

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
I'm objective in my views."

Patrick:

Maybe you are or think you are but the fact is you simply do not understand the evolution of the creation of PVGC very well for you to keep saying some of the things you have about completely returning the look of the golf course to the way it once was in the 1920s. Again, refer to what I've just said to you about that for about the 12th time.

"I know what the golf course is like, I've been playing it for forty years."

I know what the golf course is like too and I've been playing it a lot more than you for about the last thirty years. Playing the golf course from 1965 or 1975 just does not tell you a lot about the way it looked about four decades before that in 1925 though, and that's precisely what you don't understand very well if you're going to propose that the course be returned to its look tree-wise in some of those early aerials from the 1920s. Why you can't seem to understand that simple fact is really beginning to perplex me.

"I also know invasive tree growth when I see it."

So do I, and if you haven't noticed at this point what I've been proposing for over five years now regarding tree removal at PVGC you must be pretty blind or unable to read correctly.

"For you to defend trees, shrubs and scrub, literally swallowing and eradicating Crump's bunkers is mind boggling."

Where have you seen me defending trees, shrubs and scrub that literally swallowing and eradicating Crump's bunkers? How the hell many times do you need to READ that for years now I've proposed removing ALL the TREES from ALL Crump's original bunkers and the shot angles coming out of them? I said it again today for about the 12th time in the last five years. What the hell is the matter with you anyway? Are you totally incapable of reading what I've written?

"Do you think he designed and built them with the intend that they should remain hidden underneath the canopy of trees, shrubs and scrub."

Not a single time have I ever said anything remotely like that on here or anywhere else. If you think I have than find it and prove it.

"If you're going to look at pictures, open your eyes."

I understand the meaning of those early aerials and the trees originally, in the 1920s, 1930s and on about one hundred times better than you do. I've also seen a whole lot more of all the early photographic evidence than you have. I've also seen a good deal more of the record of the creation of PVGC than you have. Frankly, I doubt you've seen any of it other than what I've reported of it on here.

"Do you really believe he intended the elbow on # 1, which was a masssive sand filled bunker, to be a forest?"

Obviously, you failed to read what I've been recommending for tree removal on the first hole for years. I believe they could almost show a portion of the green from the tee, and certainly expose the green to a golfer who is along side the bunkering on the right or in it.  Can you imagine how tempting it would be to hit a recovery out of those bunkers to the green from that angle? Do you know what Crump intended to do on the left side of that fairway??

If you're going to remark about trees at PVGC and a return to the look of the early days at least get more familiar with what the evolution of the creation of that course was and what the thinking was of Crump back then. You obviously couldn't know that very well because you obviously aren't reading or comprehending very well what I've been saying about that in detail (and from the PVGC record) for some years now.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I've seen enough early photographic evidence, that when combined with forty years of play, allows me to draw prudent conclusions with respect to the invasive nature of tree, shrub and scrub growth.

If you really want to research the archives on this site you'll see that you defended PV, for reasons I clearly understood, when I stated that they had been sleeping at the switch for years, and that the golf course was suffering from, to be polite, benign neglect.

Essentially, you're a Johnny come lately to the issue.
But, that's okay, better late then never.

You and I have discussed Crump's brilliant use of skyline greens on holes # 2, # 9 and # 17.   If nothing else, the backs of those three greens should be cleared of trees, tomorrow.

Next, all trees interfering with Crump's bunkers, visually or from a playability aspect should be cleared.

Next, all trees that negatively impact the agronomics of the golf course should be removed.

Need I go further ?

[TEPaul]

redanman;

No, probably not. All I said is what the 18th tee shot feels like and plays like from the new tip tee compared to the old tip tee. Many of the good players who use those new tip tees think a good deal of Crump's original shot values and original demand has been returned but obviously some others of them think that some of those tee shots are almost too demanding now. But one thing we probably know from the recent Crump Cup is those tees are probably helping to determine who the best players are from the rest and there's no question at all that this very theme was a most fundamental theme of PVGC to George Crump.

[TEPaul]

"If you really want to research the archives on this site you'll see that you defended PV, for reasons I clearly understood, when I stated that they had been sleeping at the switch for years, and that the golf course was suffering from, to be polite, benign neglect."

Patrick:

If you're going to make a remark like that then you show me a single time on here where or when I've ever said that trees should not be removed from PVGC today. You're the one who's claiming I said that so now you prove I did or just admit I never have said anything like that. What I may've said in the past is it's my understanding that they are planning on removing the trees from Crump's bunkering just that their time-table may not be Pat Mucci's time-table which isn't surprising since you have nothing to do with Pine Valley.

"Essentially, you're a Johnny come lately to the issue.
But, that's okay, better late then never."

It really doesn't matter if I came to this issue ten years ago or thirty or forty years ago. the point is I know about ten times more about that course's creation, evolution, the reasons why and the way it is now, and the reasons why than you do. If you don't believe that just call up those down there who know the course best and they'll confirm it.

The thing I find so interesting with you is you keep claiming I'm proposing just about the opposite of what I have proposed tree-wise there for years now. No wonder so many people on here get frustrated by some of the things you say in these discussions. You simply avoid or refuse to acknowedge what's been said by others if it doesn't suit you and you make up the rest. Maybe that amuses some but if you want to have an intelligent discussion on a course like PVGC you have to take the time to do the research on it I have.

[TEPaul]

"But, more importantly, how did the match end?"

Patrick:

What match? The one against Holtgrieve? Did you miss that too? I've only posted that about three times on here over the years and told you about it about three times in person. What's going on with your memory or ability to hear and understand even the simplest things??  

As for returning the look tree-wise of PVGC to the look it had in the 1920s the very first thing you need to do is to acknowledge how different the trees that were there in the 1920s are now that they've had about 80-90 years to grow.  

If you can't understand or acknowledge that simple fact, God help you. To restore the look of the trees to the way they were in the 1920s one would have to clear cut the entire site and start all over again. Is that what you're proposing or do you know some special way to shrink trees that've been growing for 75-80 years back to their heights and sizes of the way they looked and were in the 1920s?  

[TEPaul]

MikeC and PatrickM:

This is a post from August of this year on my recommendations on the trees of Pine Valley. This is probably the last of about half a dozen of the same recommendations I've made on this specific subject on this website in the last 5-6 years all of which apparently Pat Mucci either didn't read or didn't understand if he did read them. You should see, MikeC, we are either in eeriely complete agreement on almost every detail regarding what you said on the subject in the last 24 hours or you must have remembered pretty well these completely similar recommendations of mine over the years when you made your post on the subject recently.
    


Re:Has Pine Valley been BAD for architecture, generally?« Reply #25 on: August 12, 2005, 04:32:12 am »      
 "TEPYou have to admit that the densityof trees at PVGC is not ideal right now, no?"

redanman;

I agree partially. Although most may not realize it PVGC has always controlled tree density to an extent (they do a lot more work in those woods than most know  ). The problem with trees there, as I see it, is there are too many of them that have been allowed to grow in too close to old off-play sand and bunker areas. The ideal prescription for trees at PVGC, in my opinion, is to simply remove the trees that now grow within both the originally designed bunkering and sand waste areas much of which is still there and mostly maintained and some of the old sight lines.

The latter would include;

#1 right side of the dogleg
#2 farther up both sides of the fairway to the green, particularly on the left
#3 a bit more on the right
#4 along the left side of the fairway exposing numerous old bunkers
#5 on both sides from the landing area on up past the green exposing bunkering on both sides
#6 all along the right side bigtime exposing old bunkering and giving the golfer on the tee at least some view of the green.
#8 along the left side bunkering.
#9 Along the right side particularly within 75 yards of the green
#11 along the entire right side exposing the green from the tee (I think the trees on the left overhanging a drive left should remain as they are highly strategic for the tee shot)
#12 about 30+ yards into the left side exposing the bunkers there and the green to view from the original tee.
#13  This would be the piece de resistance of tree removal and would make the most famous hole on the course off the charts it'd be so impressive looking. There's little doubt that Crump intended the golfer to catch a glimpse of the flag from the tee left on this hole. Crump had cleared approximately 40-50 yards of trees all along the left side of the hole to accomplish this. Few realize how steep that left side is that is now completely treed. That fact is what would allow a golfer to see a piece of the flag or green from the tee. Today few can even imagine this would be possible but it would be. There's a huge amount of room on the left down to the 15th hole. This is a big scale hole anyway and doing this would make it incredible in scale vis-a-vis visible width. The psychological problem it would create is the golfer would need to concentrate so much more to hit his tee shot to the fairway there'd be so much more visibility on the left where no one could hit the ball (although it may somewhat appear one could!!).
#15 Along the left up by the green on the hillside exposing bunkers and allowing a true high risk fade in there----a most dangerous shot to say the least!
#17 all along the right side! If they chose to restore the old alternate fairway in there somehow that would be really cool both in play and in it's look.

« Last Edit: August 12, 2005, 04:36:46 am by TEPaul

[Patrick_Mucci]

"But, more importantly, how did the match end?"

Patrick:

What match? The one against Holtgrieve? Did you miss that too? I've only posted that about three times on here over the years and told you about it about three times in person. What's going on with your memory or ability to hear and understand even the simplest things??  

You had him one up with one to go, what happened ?[/color]

As for returning the look tree-wise of PVGC to the look it had in the 1920s the very first thing you need to do is to acknowledge how different the trees that were there in the 1920s are now that they've had about 80-90 years to grow.  

I don't know if you're aware of it or not, but, TREES DIE.
They don't live forever, so some trees may be those that matured over the years, but, my feeling is that most are not originals, but trees added by man and by nature over the years.  And, in both cases, nothing was done to manage or restrict their growth.  Comparing photos taken in 1918, 1928, 1938, 1948, 1958, 1968, 1978, 1988, 1998 and 2005 would be useful.[/color]

If you can't understand or acknowledge that simple fact, God help you. To restore the look of the trees to the way they were in the 1920s one would have to clear cut the entire site and start all over again. Is that what you're proposing or do you know some special way to shrink trees that've been growing for 75-80 years back to their heights and sizes of the way they looked and were in the 1920s?  

There you go with extremes again.

Noone is suggesting restoring trees to their dimensions as they existed circa 1928.  What we're saying is that the number of trees, shrubs and scrub should be liimited to the areas and numbers that existed circa 1928.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"You had him one up with one to go, what happened"?

Patrick:

Well, if you really don't remember I had him a lot worse than that. I had him dormie three. I had him three down with three to play standing on #16 tee. Basically he'd been bombing his 1-iron about 50 yards past my best driver all day long but I'd been basically putting his brains out. I conceded him a par on #16 and I had about a thirty foot putt for birdie. I remember thinking as I hit that putt which was one of the easiest I had all day that I just hung in there against a guy who was so much better in everyway and that I'd convinced myself not to get intimidated and it worked. As you know you shouldn't be thinking things like that while you're putting---you know---it ain't over til the fat lady sings sort of thing. Sure enough I hit that putt about six feet too long and like a light bulb it hit me that if I miss this six foot putt and don't get him right here I just may lose this match somehow. You don't need to be thinking things like that either as you're standing over a six foot putt on #16 to beat a guy like Holtgrieve and sure enough I missed that putt and although I parred in he birdied #17 and #18 to get to overtime. We both parred #1 and even though I made a decent par on #2 he hit it stiff there and birdied to win.

That was one of the all time best lessons I ever had in tournament golf but not as good a lesson as what happened to me on the 3rd extra hole one time in the Crump against Joel Hirsch. That one was the all time shocker that ever happened to me in tournament golf.

On the winning side the best thing that ever happened to me like that was in the Maidstone Bowl semis against Joe Kazickes and Rees Jones. In that one we were coming up the 18th all even and we were all fighting like bandits to win it right there. They all hit their approaches on the green and I hooked mine so bad it was almost on the 1st tee box. There were a whole lot of people standing around all over the place and I hit this long chip from over there to a pin on that tier on the right side and in it went. Of course they all missed their birdie putts and that was it.

Everytime I see Rees, he invariably asks me two things;

1. When am I gonna stop smoking, and,
2. Have I sunk any chips like that one on the last hole to destroy the hopes and dreams of a team that had been playing together for decades in their last chance to win the Maidstone Bowl together?

I always tell Rees I still feel bad about that but, hey, that's golf and I sure wasn't thinking about sinking that chip from way over there.  

Yeah, right! What else did he think I was trying to do, cozy it up there so we could go to overtime?  

[TEPaul]

"I don't know if you're aware of it or not, but, TREES DIE. They don't live forever, so some trees may be those that matured over the years, but, my feeling is that most are not originals, but trees added by man and by nature over the years.  And, in both cases, nothing was done to manage or restrict their growth.  Comparing photos taken in 1918, 1928, 1938, 1948, 1958, 1968, 1978, 1988, 1998 and 2005 would be useful."

Patrick, that just could be the dumbest thing you've said to date on this subject. Sure trees die but there're probably thousands out there that are the mature examples of some of those much smaller things you see in those 1920s aerials. If you removed all but those ones the course is still going to look nothing like it did in the 1920s. In case you never realized it the trees that were at Pine Valley before Crump bought the place are considered to be an classic example of "second growth". In other words a forest fire may've ravaged that place a couple of decades before around 1912. That's because so many of the trees you see in those early photos were so small instead of examples of decades old trees.

So, to return the course to the look of the 1920s I guess your idea is to clear cut the entire site and start again with some smaller trees like the ones in some of those early photos, huh? Just another one of your brilliant ideas, Pat, or just another great example of opinions borne of far less than intelligent thought and research!  

[TEPaul]

"Noone is suggesting restoring trees to their dimensions as they existed circa 1928.  What we're saying is that the number of trees, shrubs and scrub should be liimited to the areas and numbers that existed circa 1928."

1928, huh? Where did you come up with that year? Is that because it's the year of the only aerial you've actually seen of PVGC?  

The best prescription for trees at PVGC, as I've mentioned on here like that reprint above and about another half dozen times is to simply remove all the trees that have been planted or grown up within Crump's old bunkering and their shot angles and the course would be just fine with real visual width showing loads more sand but with the visual isolation between the holes just the way Crump intended it to be.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Rather than get bogged down in micro managing tree removal, just look at the fairway and tree lines in the old pictures and compare them to the new pictures.

There weren't any trees growing out of bunkers back then.
And, there weren't any trees with drip lines invasive to the fairways.

You can deny the benign neglect that has taken place over the years all you want, the fact remains that PV is choked off by trees, shrubs and scrub, and only acceptance of that fact can lead to the implementation of an intelligent and immediate tree management program that hasn't existed in 85+ years.

Because PV is so special, the curators of PV have an obligation to the golf course, Crump and golf that shouldn't be allowed to be swept under the carpet.

I would have prefered it had you two putted # 16 and won 3 and 2.  Jim Holtgrieve was an exceptional player and it would have been a nice feather in your cap.  I'll bet that he would have been a little heated by the fact that a gentleman farmer from Newton, Pa. whipped him.
Negative thoughts and improper thoughts often have a major impact on play and scoring. Being able to remain positive, keeping your head about you in the heat of battle is a great asset.

I believe that Jim just applied for amateur reinstatement after many years on the Senior PGA Tour.

How are amateurs supposed to compete, on an equal footing, with someone who's been on the Tour for the last five or so years ?

Rees often speaks of your BLADED shot, but, not in the glowing terms you use to describe it.

I knew John Kozickas, from having played in the Mid Amateur with him.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Honest to God, how can you act so dense on this issue of what I've been recommending for years regarding trees and tree removal at PVGC? If I've been endorsing benign neglect with trees at PVGC, as you keep saying, then why would I have been recommending for years now that all the trees within ALL the original bunkers and their shot angles including all the sand waste areas that were designed be removed?

Perhaps you have no real idea what my recommendations mean. Obvously you have no idea on the extent of what I've said on #6, #13 and #17 alone. Perhaps you think what I'm saying is just a few trees. Do you realize that what I recommended in that post from August I just reposted for your edification would entail the removal of perhaps a couple of thousand trees. Obviously you don't understand PVGC and what I'm saying well enough to understand that.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I recognize your recent position on the trees, shrubs and scrub at PV.

But, endorsing band-aids when major surgery is required will only result in token efforts.

[TEPaul]

No, Pat, Rees pretty much describes that shot just the way it was hit and the way it happened. No reason to do otherwise since there were about 100 orther people around who saw it. You're the one who exaggerates things like that putt Ran made on #17 at Sand Hills. You've probably forgotten I was right there watching it. It went in with authority no doubt but the pin was out and it just went right in there like good aggressive putts do.  

And again, as for PVGC and trees just forget about this horseshit recommendation of yours of returning the course to the look of some of those 1920s aerials. That's impossible and if you haven't figured out why that is by now you really are hopeless. The best prescription for the restoration of the course to do with trees is simply to get all of them out of Crump's original bunkering and their shot angles. No architect I've ever heard of designed bunkering to be in a forest of trees, not George Crump, not anybody.

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

Tom wants to cut down trees. Trees that get in the way of lines of sight, lines of play and those that hide traps.  Lots of trees.  He does not think that all trees should be cut down to a point in time but to how Crump meant for them to be.

There, they were all one syllable words.  Get it?  You're not far off from each other but you seem to refuse to look for the commonalities and excentuate the differences.  You want the course more open yet fail to grasp the process that made it open and the subsequent process that produced the desired effect of segregating holes.  Have things gone too far with tree proliferation?  Clearly and Tom realized this and explained it years ago along with his desire to restore.  

The holes can be kept segregated and still have great playability with restored angles and lines of sight just as Crump wanted.  The course was not meant to be opened as in the earliest photographs around 1916.  The photograph you site in Shackleford's book on page 55 shows trees left as is and others that were more recently planted but far enough out of the line of play according to Crump's plan.  The method Crump used to do extensive clearing was probably due to his lack of experience and knowledge about how to do this.  It was easier for him to clear and replace.  He wanted to replace the trees cut down and this is evident from multiple sources, the easiest to see is photographic.  I fail to see how the photograph on pg. 55 recognizing existing trees and recent plantings) does not jive with what Tom has been saying including skyline greens at 2,9 and 17.

[TEPaul]

Regarding restoring skyline greens at PVGC, in my opinion #2 would be by far the easiest and simplest to do and it would also be the most awesome and dramatic. For a number of reasons, all of which I've mentioned before, even though Pat Mucci appears to have missed it, would be virtually impossible to do at this point. If it were even attempted today on either #9 or #17 it would probably just create a weird looking chute-effect skyline look. Pat Mucci, as I recall, wanted Ken Bakst to remove all the trees directly behind #15 green at Friar's Head. Do that just behind the green would've looked stupid and chute-like and thankfully Ken Bakst had and has the good sense and the good taste to understand that and to look at Pat Mucci's recommendation the way it should be looked at---eg real unintelligent foolishness!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I wanted to put the 16th tee at Friar's Head up on the dune, sort of like # 17 at NGLA, not cut into the north side of the dune as it exists now.

As to the dwarf beeches, their absence would improve the views on the hole.

As to Pine Valley, it would be a simple task to make # 2, # 9 and # 17 skyline greens.

If you view the project in the narrow minded context of just clearing the trees behind the green one could see your point.
But, to reclaim the skyline greens that Crump intended, designed and built, it's a simple task to expand the tree clearing horizontally along the rear of each green.

You're just an obstructionist looking for reasons to resist improving the golf course, ala David Spade and Capital One.

Wayne Morrison,

I haven't failed to grasp the issue.
I'm aware that the trees took years before they overran the golf course, but that doesn't mean that that can't be reversed in one fell swoop or over a short period of time.

Every golf course that became overrun with trees did so over time, just look at NGLA.  But, eradicating the benign neglect that occured over the last 60+ years can take place over just a few years.  PV has the budget and thus the resources to fix the problem almost instantaneously.

The critical issue are:

Does PV acknowledge that they have a tree-brush-scrub problem ?

Are they willing to remedy the problem as quickly as possible ?

In addition, the topography provides excellent seperation on many holes.   And, trees that assist with seperation shouldn't be confused with trees that are invasive to the architecture, the lines of sight and the lines of play.

I ask you and TEPaul to again revisit the aerial photo taken in
1925, which appears on page 55 in Geoff Shackelford's book,
"The Golden Age of Golf Design"

Is seperation or isolation not already achieved without infringing on the bunkers, lines of sight and lines of play ?

What is wrong with the golf course circa 1925 ?
What about the golf course in 1925 is counter to Crump's vision ?

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

I knew you and Tom were somewhere on the same page butting head.  I agree that the 1925 photo in Shack's book does show the course as intended but not quite at with the younger trees planted in cleared areas to fill in some of the gaps in segregation.  I said so in post 101:

"The photograph you site in Shackleford's book on page 55 shows trees left as is and others that were more recently planted but far enough out of the line of play according to Crump's plan.  The method Crump used to do extensive clearing was probably due to his lack of experience and knowledge about how to do this.  It was easier for him to clear and replace.  He wanted to replace the trees cut down and this is evident from multiple sources, the easiest to see is photographic.  I fail to see how the photograph on pg. 55 recognizing existing trees and recent plantings) does not jive with what Tom has been saying including skyline greens at 2,9 and 17."

I hope the club does move on these issues.  As you said, it wouldn't be hard logistically once the decision was made.  Getting to that point is another matter.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()