News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Patrick_Mucci_Jr

Re:Pine Valley #1...probably not...
« Reply #25 on: December 30, 2005, 09:29:58 AM »
Pat, I've only played PV once so don't have the benefit of multiple rounds there, but can you really try to cut the corner on the 1st and reach the green?   :-\



Mike,

I can't.

But, today's young players can.

It's certainly not driveable in the sense of # 1 and # 2 at NGLA, but for a really long hitter I think it's reachable, and there seems to be more really long hitters playing golf these days.
[/color]

TEPaul

Re:Pine Valley #1...probably not...
« Reply #26 on: December 30, 2005, 09:44:44 AM »
"PV doesn't have what people would normally consider a reachable par 5. (I don't get the greatness of the 7th in any event. The 15th is a much better par 5.)

The finish with two shortish par 4's, both with uphill approaches to semi-blind greens, is not ideal."

Bobzee;

To begin with the last first---eg PV's finishing with two shortish par 4s, #18 as of now is most definitely not short anymore even for the longer crowd. At 485 now and a 250 yard forced carry it definitely ain't short anymore. (an ultra long kid like Mike McDermott thinks under some conditions he may be able to reach it with as little as an 8-iron but probably more like a 5-6 iron the rest of the time. And a hole that someone like Mike Mcdermott needs a 5 iron to approach definitely ain't short!

#17 is short and was intended to be so pretty much from the git-go and that hole is truly wonderful for that. It's a great match play swing hole at a crucial time in most matches and was designed for that--somewhat along the dedicated lines of Crump's match play idea for #1 which he kept working on. I know from experience that if you come into #17 with your match on the line you know you pretty much have to birdie that one or you might be done. That hole is just so cool for that. I can't tell you how it makes you feel not so much on the tee because there's nothing much challenging about that but on the approach shot. It's one of those unusual shots and times when you know your shot can't just be good, that it might have to be great! You're standing there with nothing more than a wedge or 9 iron but you know so palpably that it's all come down to that shot right here, right now. Some remarkabl things have happened both ways on that approach shot to #17. It happened to me once in perhaps the most educational match of my life.

By the way, both par 5s at PV were intended to be and designed to not be reachable in two, no way, no how, by anybody--EVER! That's what Crump wanted, no questions asked! I hear you about #7. That's the hole at PV whose challenge, demand and strategy has been most gutted by the distance increase in the last decade or more. And it's the hole at PV which has taken the most criticism for that in recent years. They just added more length to it and so it has gotten back some of it's intended pretty much one dimensional "Shot testing" strategy, but certainly nothing like the way Crump and Tillinghast seemingly intended it to be.

I think it's sort of sad with #7 too because the hole was being turned into much more of an interesting strategy in the end of 1917 and just around that time Crump died. What they were trying to accomplish, though, is right there in the archives loud and clear. I hesitate to suggest that anyone touch PV at this point but I might make an exception on #7, and #6 too. What Crump was going to do on #6 is totally documented, but again, he didn't get to it and then suddenly he was gone, and everything came to a screeching halt for a couple of years.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2005, 10:00:58 AM by TEPaul »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re:Pine Valley #1...probably not...
« Reply #27 on: December 30, 2005, 09:48:27 AM »
Pat:  I think trying once or twice would be all it took to convince a good player that was not a good idea.  I remember seeing one of the best players I know make an 8 from below the green on the right.

Jordan:  You should never judge a golf course by the scorecard.  That's one dimensional thinking, and it's why we always rag on Matt Ward when he asks for the yardages from the tips.

The truth is that NO golf course has it all.  Pine Valley doesn't have a short par 5; St. Andrews doesn't have a great set of par-3's; Cypress Point doesn't have a great finishing hole (or a long par 5).  It is impossible to include every good idea about golf architecture within 18 holes ... there are more ideas than that.  So, ultimately, you learn to judge courses by how they are different and what they offer, instead of by what's missing on some checklist.

I have always agreed with Jim Lewis and the others who say that Pine Valley has the best variety of golf holes on the planet; in fact I believe I've written just that in The Confidential Guide.  However, I have also steadfastly refused to rate it #1, because it's unplayable for anyone over a 15 handicap, and I think that's a big weakness -- most people don't understand how easy it would be to design a dramatic course if you just made all the weaker players stay home.

Don't be afraid to start a controversial topic here, but ideally it should be one where you've "done the research."

PS  Pine Valley has gone back in recently and added tees on a bunch of holes to give it some long par-4's on the card, as Tom Paul referred to obliquely.  Makes it a better course for a professional, doesn't make a darn bit of difference for me other than now I have to avoid being dragged to the back tees at all costs.

JSlonis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Pine Valley #1...probably not...
« Reply #28 on: December 30, 2005, 10:00:44 AM »
Jordan,

Pine Valley's 13th hole is about 475 yds from the back tees, #16 is 460+, and #18 is 480 yds.  The total card yardage from the back tees is now 6999 yds. Hell's Half Acre doesn't prevent guys from hitting #7 in two, the surrounding greenside bunker does. Now with the extended yardage to the back tee, sheer length prevents it.  I also don't think the lack of a reachable par 5 is a negative, I think it's a positive to play a course that requires 3 good shots to hit the green in regulation on a par 5.  Until the technolgy boom of the last 10 years, there were many courses with unreachable par 5's.

I think you could call #8 and #12 driveable par 4's.  Although long hitters can reach #8, the actual likelyhood of hitting it on the green is remote at best.  On #12, there is a better chance of getting your tee shot near the front edge of the green.  Although I'm not sure what tees Pat is referencing, I wouldn't call #1 or #6 driveable.  

The bottom line is...You can spout all the formulas and theories you want on what you think makes a great golf course, but until you actually see what is "on the ground" at Pine Valley, you really can't appreciate all that you need to, to properly judge the course.  The greensites are just spectacular, and the variety of each hole and the shots that they require of the golfer are what make Pine Valley so special.  

The continued tree removal that is taking place this winter will only benefit the greatness that is aleady there.  Hopefully someday you'll get to experience it for yourself...you might change your mind! ;D

You are not offending anyone.  Don't ever worry about questioning things...it's one of the great ways to learn. :)
« Last Edit: December 30, 2005, 02:05:24 PM by JSlonis »

Philippe Binette

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Pine Valley #1...probably not...
« Reply #29 on: December 30, 2005, 10:02:55 AM »
From Tom Doak's quote: ....how easy it would be to design a dramatic course if you just made all the weaker players stay home...

I always think about that when I play a couple of holes at my course, how cool it could be if they stop mowing grass all over the place,  but it will also produce some 8-hour rounds.

I haven't played Pine Valley but I guess if you're off with your swing one day there, you're screwed (see Shell Wonderful World of Golf in 1963 for that). That's why I prefer to walk a course and then play it when studying a course... because if not you remember a course from where you've played it...

Most of what I remember from Shinnecock is how difficult the course is from the tall stuff on the right....

Philippe Binette

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Pine Valley #1...probably not...
« Reply #30 on: December 30, 2005, 10:04:22 AM »
The total card yardage from the back tees is now 6999 yards...

DEFINITELY NOT ON PURPOSE

TEPaul

Re:Pine Valley #1...probably not...
« Reply #31 on: December 30, 2005, 10:07:30 AM »
Patrick Mucci---what the hell is going on with you regarding Pine Valley's #1??

You are just totally missing the boat on that hole and on both ends. The green could not possibly be skyline and there's no way in the universe someone would try to DRIVE #1, not from the back tee anyway.

What the hell are you thinking about? They could give Nebraska's Long John Hurley a hundred balls and he'd never be able to do it and he has the highest ball speed the USGA has ever recorded in real life and that includes, Tiger, Daly, Kuehne, you name it.

Get a grip on yourself Pat! This distance problem thing has definitely gone to your head  ;)

Voytek Wilczak

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Pine Valley #1...probably not...
« Reply #32 on: December 30, 2005, 10:09:26 AM »
Jordan:

1. Getting on PV to play is difficult, but walking it is child's play. Go to Crump Cup, walk the course. I did it three times.

2. Pine Valley is the best because it has MAGIC in addition to quality design. All the pundits here can try to analyze the architecture to death, measure hole yardages, approach angles, and stimp data. I have not yet seen anyone in this esteemed group measure a course's MAGIC. Pine Valley has it in spades, as do few other courses in the world. But Pine Valley has the most of it (edit: on second thought it's a tossup with TOC in the magic department).
« Last Edit: December 30, 2005, 10:11:31 AM by Voytek Wilczak »

TEPaul

Re:Pine Valley #1...probably not...
« Reply #33 on: December 30, 2005, 10:10:02 AM »
"The total card yardage from the back tees is now 6999 yards...

DEFINITELY NOT ON PURPOSE"

Philippe:

I actually asked Gordon about that 6999!   ;)

It does look like they really are going to add distance to #4 so that total card number will be history.

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Pine Valley #1...probably not...
« Reply #34 on: December 30, 2005, 10:22:20 AM »
Jordan: Here's what I feel is the irony of great golf courses and ratings and rankings, etc.  PV is recognized as the best and in general terms it is because not only does it have such a great variety of holes, great green complexes and great shot values, one of the other great features is that it fits so well on a really good piece of property.  It doesn't look contrived and seems natural when you play it, and it was built a long time ago and has withstood the test of time.

Now we look at today and what course is recognized as the best modern course, Sand Hills.  With all the machinery and equipment available to build the best course in the world, what is recognized as the best; the one that doesn't look contrived, seems natural when you play it, has a great variety of holes, great shot values and is on a really great piece of property.

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Pine Valley #1...probably not...
« Reply #35 on: December 30, 2005, 11:05:56 AM »
St. Andrews doesn't have a great set of par-3's....
RED LIGHT!!! RED LIGHT!!! RED LIGHT!!!
Jordan,
Close your ears to this! I find this quote to be completely blasphemous and the telling sign of pre-dementia.....The fact is that the Old Course has two very good one-shot holes, one of them which this very designer, as well as anyone who has designed and built golf courses has ever been able to replicate or even better. (The Eden)

Tom, your penance is to build a legendary one-shotter which can be so feared that it deserves a name and will be talked about, let alone has stirred the souls of those who have played it for over a century.


Jordan Wall

Re:Pine Valley #1...probably not...
« Reply #36 on: December 30, 2005, 11:06:18 AM »
This was my whole intent of my question, and I apologize to anybody offended originally about it...

...Pine Valley IS a great course.  I did not mean to say it was not.  As a person learning architecture, I wanted to know what made PV so great compared to other courses.  Everybody is right, I should not have judged the course W/O seeing or playing it...the old cliche of dont judge a book by it's cover...but I am learning what makes and does not make a great course and this was just a bad way to present it and ask it...

You guys, I could not say thanks enough for letting be on this site, and, even though it was not a great topic, sharing why PV is so good and #1.  My apologies again to ANY offended people ;)

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Pine Valley #1...probably not...
« Reply #37 on: December 30, 2005, 11:07:31 AM »
Better yet, rebuild the 12th at Garden City.

TEPaul

Re:Pine Valley #1...probably not...
« Reply #38 on: December 30, 2005, 11:13:55 AM »
"My apologies again to ANY offended people  :)

Hey, Jordan, don't worry about something like that at all. That's what we're here for on this website. Even if some people think so not any golf course anywhere gets a total free pass on here, and that includes the World's #1 course--Pine Valley. Could PV be any better than it already is? Of course it can. Losing in the neighborhood of a few thousand trees would be one area. But I feel they understand that and will do it. Maybe not on Pat Mucci's timetable because he doesn't have anything to do with it but on their own timetable.  ;)

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Pine Valley #1...probably not...
« Reply #39 on: December 30, 2005, 11:15:49 AM »
 :D :) 8)


Hey Pat Mucci, merry Christmas.

I don't know about going for #1, but I'll never forget MIke Dunaway blasting away at # 6 back in 1983 with a persimmon driver ( McGregor Eye_o Matic ????)

As to JW's initial query about long par fours, should they have made thirteen even longer from the new tee, I'll have to ask my buddies in the yard who hit what from where this summer.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Pine Valley #1...probably not...
« Reply #40 on: December 30, 2005, 11:26:34 AM »
Jordan, don't worry about offending people with an honest question. We've all done it and we've all been chastised for it, sometimes when we deserve it and even sometimes when we don't.

The only thing I'll add is that if you search for older information on PV, try to find the threads that discuss the Crump Cup. Reading what top competitive golfers like Jamie Slonis, Michael Wharton Palmer, Tom Paul, etc., who've played the course under its tournament setup will probably be the most interesting info you can find.

If you find a thread about who deserves credit for designing PV, then you'd best simply skip it, unless you find that topic compelling (as many of us do). Those threads don't have as much of the type of information you're seeking.

Keep on postin'. :)
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

CHrisB

Re:Pine Valley #1...probably not...
« Reply #41 on: December 30, 2005, 11:29:34 AM »
St. Andrews doesn't have a great set of par-3's....

On the contrary, I think #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, and #18 are all excellent par 3's. ;)

Donnie Beck

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Pine Valley #1...probably not...
« Reply #42 on: December 30, 2005, 12:32:19 PM »
Has anyone else noticed our friend Barney hasn't posted at all since Jordan joined a few weeks ago or is it just me ?

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re:Pine Valley #1...probably not...
« Reply #43 on: December 30, 2005, 12:44:23 PM »
Tommy N:

I know you're still p.o.'d at me, but I never said the Eden hole wasn't a great hole, and the eighth is okay too.  [It would be my favorite hole on the course if my tee shot in the Dunhill had been a foot and a half longer!]  

What I said was that St. Andrews didn't have a great SET of par-3's.  I've heard many people over the years insist that having a great set of par-3's was one key to having a great course, and they meant four of them (or maybe five), not two.

St. Andrews isn't getting a pass in that department because it's old; it's the living proof that you don't have to have four great par-3's to have a great couse.

redanman

Re:Pine Valley #1...probably not...
« Reply #44 on: December 30, 2005, 01:13:30 PM »


As to JW's initial query about long par fours, should they have made thirteen even longer from the new tee, I'll have to ask my buddies in the yard who hit what from where this summer.

Hi Archie

First off, are you at GB this winter when it's open?

But to answer the above question:13 is 495+ with the tee shot more uphill.  

I had to hit a 19* rescue in there to about 10 feet but missed the !@%&#^$& putt!  

Back in the old days that was about what was necessary for me D 1-iron

Bill

And to Jordan

Everyone doesn't have the same #1 you know.  For some it's PBGL, for some it's Shinnecock, for some it's Merion, for some it's Sand Hills, for some it's NGLA, but please don't start all those threads, please?

tonyt

Re:Pine Valley #1...probably not...
« Reply #45 on: December 30, 2005, 03:36:28 PM »
Jordan,

Scorecards lie.

They tell us all manner of things about a course, and yet don't tell us anything at all about the holes in reality. If nobody here ever saw a top 100 course, and we were all shown their cards, we could run wild. Lacking hole lengths, repetitive hole lengths, similar direction of similar length holes if we had an overhead plan. And yet every last one of these criticisms completely ignores what is actually there. I'm not making the "gotta play it first" argument, because you've been slapped for that enough. Instead, I'm worried about an equally serious shortfall; namely the scorecard or routing map diagnosis.

Michael Plunkett

Re:Pine Valley #1...probably not...
« Reply #46 on: December 30, 2005, 08:59:40 PM »
Jordan:

If you haven't played a course, you will be attacked, deservedly so.

Play it

Invite me too, someone, anyone !  

Michael Dugger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Pine Valley #1...probably not...
« Reply #47 on: December 30, 2005, 11:06:21 PM »
PV was cut from ungodly terrain.  Exposed underneath the pine trees was a fascinating landscape for golf holes.  Perfect undulation, hills, sandy loam, water and nasty chasms, Cypress may have the ocean but PV has unparalleled wastelands.

The one shot holes are incredible, probably the finest set in existence.  You have the unbearably long 5th, the devilishly short 10th, the heroic 14th and the 3rd, which I guess is kinda redan like but overall just a neat hole.  The early photos make every patch of green look like an island of turf amongst a wasteland of unplayable lies and other unspokens.

The bunkers yawn ominously.

It's an awe inspiring golf course, I can tell that and I haven't even been there before either.  I would put the property in any top ten list.  I would like to think that for starters, few architects could have screwed up that land.  Thus, any course over that land would have probably been great.

As well as at Cypress, or Pebble.  

   
What does it matter if the poor player can putt all the way from tee to green, provided that he has to zigzag so frequently that he takes six or seven putts to reach it?     --Alistair Mackenzie--

Patrick_Mucci_Jr

Re:Pine Valley #1...probably not...
« Reply #48 on: December 30, 2005, 11:36:38 PM »
:D :) 8)


Hey Pat Mucci, merry Christmas.

I don't know about going for #1, but I'll never forget MIke Dunaway blasting away at # 6 back in 1983 with a persimmon driver ( McGregor Eye_o Matic ????)

Archie,

And a Happy and Healthy New Year to you and your family.

I played with a fellow yesterday who was in his early 50's, a
5 handicap.   He hit his drives incredible distances, high and straight.  I have every confidence that he could drive # 1.

And, the other day a father and son played through us on
# 14 at Pine Tree.  The young man drove the 15th green from ten yards in front of the back of the tee.
I think he could also drive the 1st at PV.

These are no longer rare events, they're becoming quite common amongst the younger generations.

I think reducing the size of the clubface to circa 1970 would go a long way toward reducing distance, as would limiting shaft length.

The only way golf courses can defend themselves these days is to get gimmickie, especially at the green end.
Thus, it's no longer golf, but a freak show.

Concrete greens that putt at 13 on the stimp was not how golf was intended to be played
[/color]

« Last Edit: December 30, 2005, 11:37:01 PM by Patrick_Mucci_Jr »

Jordan Wall

Re:Pine Valley #1...probably not...
« Reply #49 on: December 31, 2005, 12:21:17 AM »
If ou guys dont mind me asking, how long is the first, and how long does it really play if you cut the corner?

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back