[Dunlop_White]

Just heard that lots of trees at PV have been marked for removal. Good thing, as many of us on here have noted. During a recent visit I found literally hundreds of bunkers infested with vegetation 15-20 yards deep in the woods. I hope they will peel back the edges and re-expose these beauties throughout the course. Does anyone have any details?

[TEPaul]

Obviously the perfect tree prescription for PV would be to concentrate first on removing all the trees from Mr Crump's old bunkers and their shot angles.

There's no question in my mind that Crump wanted the holes of his course to be separated and segregated by trees but there's no question in my mind either that he most certainly never intended to have trees all around some of his bunkering or their shot angles---or obviously he wouldn't have built many of them were he did. If they used this basic prescription for tree removal the real surprises would be #12 on the left but also #1, #2, #3 (hardly anyone has noticed the bunkers along the left side of that hole's fairway), #5 and #6. Of course the hole that would be the mother of all tree removal would be #17 if they decided to restore the old right fairway. Unfortunately the old alternate right fairway on #17 ended at about the same distance as the present one so restoring it wouldn't really allow for drivers up the right side today (extending the right alternate would be problematic). But restoring the old alternate right fairway would solve one endemic problem on that hole which is the divot problem on the swale shaped left fairway.

There's only one area on one hole that has bunkers in the trees which are actually still very well maintained that wouldn't make much sense to remove all the trees and that is on the left along the road on #6. When that hole was first built there may not have even been a road to that point although it followed pretty soon.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Dunlop,

I was thinking of you recently when I was deep in the left woods on #12, in a bunker.  

I have to admit I did not notice the markings, but was told after the round that they were indeed there for removal before next season. Thus, it appears that it will happen, but I can't say how much or how deep.

The trees on the Short course seemed fine to me in comparison, but of course it is mainly irons off the tees.

[ChipOat]

If the results at NGLA are any indication of the likely impact, I hope PV is really doing this and I can't wait to see what happens.

[Paul_Turner]

As has been discussed to death before, the skylines behind greens of 2nd and 9th would be the best to return.  And keep going down the 10th and remove all the trees on the left there...

I think the course would be grander with some open vistas.  Can you imagine looking down over the ridge from the 12th and 13th.  Or up from the 3rd to the 6th??

[TEPaul]

Heh, Paul, settle for the removal of trees from old man Crump's bunkering. All that other stuff is not going to happen and that look from somethng like #3 up to #6 is never going to happen. How in the hell could it? All those trees from #3 to #6 are about 30-40 higher than they were back in the teens. What do you expect them to do clear-cut the whole damn site and start again with little trees of the sort that were there when Crump found the place?   If the club did happen to remove all the trees from all Crump's original bunkering that's still all pretty much there the visual impact of it on that golf course would be stunning enough, believe me.

[Pat_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I don't share your view that it was Crump's global desire to isolate every hole vis a vis a curtain of trees.

1928 Aerials would seem to more accurately reflect Crump's intentions.

Should Pine Valley return itself to that configuration, the golf course, and play would be dramatically improved.

Dunlop White,

What I don't understand is:  What took them so long ?
Why was there a failure, for the last 50 years, to recognize that the golf course was being literally enveloped by encroaching brush, scrub and trees ?

Perhaps the work at NGLA both educated and inspired them with respect to what was ..... and what could be.

Off fairway bunkers at PV are like the Mayan Temples, overrun by the jungle, just waiting to be rediscovered and reclaimed, for all to visit and admire.

Hopefully, this won't be a token or half hearted effort, and that it will inspire other clubs to follow suit.

[Paul_Turner]

Yes you have to think big... just drop an incendiary bomb on the place.  

Or at least the trees could be thinned so you can see through the trees.

The closest cousins to PVGC, the English heath courses, could do with the same treatment.  If the 10th at Sunningdale was "nuked" it would have the grandest view in inland golf.  

PV was so much grander in 1920 even ignoring the "black and white photography effect".   And uncovering some bunkers is only a small measure.

(From memory, the 11th, 12th 13th and 7th were the worst for deciduous trees at PINE valley.)

[Pat_Mucci]

Paul Turner,

Returning # 2, # 9 and # 17 to skyline greens would be incredible.

I wonder how effective it would be at # 1 ?

[Joel_Stewart]

I heard yesterday that Gordon approved the new tee on #4.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
I don't share your view that it was Crump's global desire to isolate every hole vis a vis a curtain of trees.
1928 Aerials would seem to more accurately reflect Crump's intentions."

Pat:

I've only told you now about five times what some of those clearing lines that still show up on aerials such as 1928 mean but you either don't read it or don't get it. If one matches some early descriptions (by such as Tillinghast) as well as the much later remembrances of Crump's two closest friends as well as the Alison plan and 1921 Committee with most all those clearing lines you can tell what he was up to on almost every one of them. But you probably have no earthly idea what I'm talking about.  

Returning #2 to a skyline green would be the most awesome of all of them for obvious reasons, and it would be extremely easy to do. #9 probably won't happen and I don't think it should. To see why one needs to stand in that fairway in the dead of winter. #17 would've been an awesome skyline green restoration but unfortunately today the trees guarding the back tee on both #11 and the brand new one on #18 would make trying that look pretty stupid. It would look less like a skyline and more like a "chute-look" directly behind the green.

[Pat_Mucci]

TEPaul,

It's been said that the worst descriptions of a criminal act are from eye witness accounts, hence in many cases I tend to discount some of the descriptions provided by olde guys, especially when their mediums were limited.

The aerials, circa 1928, are irrefutable.

With the golf course ten years old, any existing trees or subsequent plantings would be clearly visible.

If Crump had wanted the absolute isolation that some indicate, he would have been more propitious in his initial tree clearing project.

Don't forget that the early architects were very frugal, very efficient.

It's doubtful that they would eliminate trees, mature to sapplings, only to replant them during or after construction.

One only has to take a look at some of the early aerials and compare them to what has existed over the last 5-10 years to know that benign neglect, not Crump's intent is responsible for the invasive and encroaching envelopment of the golf course by shrubs, undergrowth and trees.

[Rick Shefchik]

Loath as I am to step between Mr. Mucci and Mr. Paul in a knife fight over which trees at Pine Valley were intended to be there, I would propose removing every tree on every golf course the world over that restricts one's shot out of a bunker.

If Pine Valley settled for doing that, it would surely be a better golf course -- as would my home course.

[ForkaB]

Rick is right

Never been there, but if there are trees in bunkers that Crump intended to be normal bunkers (i.e. without trees), then the course comes nowhere near to its original architectural intent.  Bring out the chainsaws!

[mike_malone]

 Can some of the desired separation at PVGC be achieved by the use of hills ? This would be an interesting change from a continuous row of trees.

[Pat_Mucci]

Mayday,

The topography already serves the purpose of seperating many of the holes.

Creating additional hills would be disastrous.

[mike_malone]

 Pat,

  Interesting idea---Let's build some sandhills at PVGC.  


   I meant using the hills already there!

[Pat_Mucci]

Mayday,

The hills that are already there provide seperation.

Just look at # 18 and the hill to the left of the fairway.

Look at # 15 and the hill to the left of the fairway.

Likewise the hill-ridge on # 2 & 4 provides seperation.

I'd have to visit the site again, or look at a topo, but I believe most of # 17 fairway may sit below the hill seperating it from # 16.

[mike_malone]

 So , this would mean that a plan could be developed which attains separation with fewer trees. If so, then they should consider it.

[Pat_Mucci]

Mayday,

They don't need a plan, they already have one, it's called the 1928 Aerial.

TEPaul,

What do you think of # 1 as a skyline green ?

[Pat_Mucci]

Paul Turner, TEPaul, et. al,

Does anyone have ground level photos from the approach to
# 1 green, dating back to the 20's ?

[wsmorrison]

Not to speak for Tom, Pat.  But if they did clear the hundreds of trees it would take behind the first green would it open up a view of the railroad tracks?  I think so.

[Pat_Mucci]

Wayne,

That would be true if you cleared behind the second tee, but not behind the first green, which sits at a 90 degree angle to the direction of the second tee.

[JESII]

#1 cannot work as a true skyline green because the property line is fairly close there. If they cleared all of the trees on the golf course side of the fence (probably 20 - 30 yards worth) the player would still have a background referrence with the trees along the railroad tracks. That 25 yard "skyline" effect would have its benefits, but they might not be enough to counter the fact that the tracks and road would be in plain view. Besides, think about the approach to that hole, when firm that green must be one of the most intimidating opening greens on the planet and the current tree arrangement seems to encourage an approach to the front portions of the green. From there the challenge really escalates if the hole is center or past center at all. In my opinion, skymine greens have their place and are very useful, but they should not be forced. The way the 18th tee complex is presently, I believe it would be "forcing" the situation to make #17 a skyline as well. #2 would be awesome, and I think #9 might be counter productive as well.

Mayday,

The hills that are already there provide seperation.

Just look at # 18 and the hill to the left of the fairway.

Look at # 15 and the hill to the left of the fairway.

Likewise the hill-ridge on # 2 & 4 provides seperation.

I'd have to visit the site again, or look at a topo, but I believe most of # 17 fairway may sit below the hill seperating it from # 16.

[/color]

I think this quote is dead on Patrick, if you were to go to each hole (not only the ones you mention) and walk the hole you would find virtually zero instances in which you felt crowded. The routing and terrain provides buffers between every hole to a large extent.

The 4th green gets close to the 1st fairway but not too bad.
The 6th fairway in the left corner flirts with the seventh as players leave the tee.
The 7th fairway is not too far from the 8th green/ 9th tee.
10th green / 11th tee / 17th green / 18th tee
11th fairway left gets within shouting range of 16th tee
12th walking off the tee and 8th tee are close

Those are the only examples I can think of in which another group could possibly (and I mean possibly) effect your day. The bold print line is the one real "cluster", but that is not too bad today and would not get any worse no matter what was done with trees.

[Pat_Mucci]

JES II,

I think you're forgetting that the 1st green is dramatically elevated from the land behind it, hence cutting trees immediately behind it, and to the right of the second tee would create the skyline green effect, without opening up unsightly views.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()