Can you create interest and challenge by simple means ?

[DMoriarty]

Patrick the answer to your original question is yes, most definitely.  

But unfortunately in this day and age of hyper-sensitivity regarding ratings, where many courses built to look good in photographs and from from cart paths, anyone who goes the simple route ought to be prepared to have his work overlooked or at least vigorously challenged by those whose ideas of interest and challenge tends toward the blatant.

By the way, you've got to come play Rustic Canyon, where the interest and challenge is created by simple means on almost every hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Crump did intend to construct some kind of a ridge into the green running from perhaps the position of that pimple to the right side of the green.

I believe that I stated same in a previous post.

What's clear, by design and construction, is that Crump intended and built the 18th green with a prominent feature, a mound-pimple in the middle of the green.

If Crump had any desire to remove the pimple, it was only to replace it with another internal feature, a ridge, that would provide a similar function.

He NEVER intended the green to be the punchbowl it is today.
[/color]

Paul Turner,

I don't think one analyzes the greens at PV and comes away thinking, "what a great green for a finishing hole at Pine Valley"
It's rather bland and forgiving.

There's no doubt in my mind that the original green, or Crump's alleged alteration, was far superior.

So, the issue isn't the amount of time that the green has been in its present form.  That's no barometer of its merit,

Certainly no more than the invasive trees that have been allowed to exist for decades are their own barometer of their merit.  

The issues are:
 
# 1 is today's green superior to the one that Crump designed
      and built ?

# 2 is today's green superior to the one that Crump is alleged
      to have wanted to replace the original green ?

I think the answer is NO to both questions, and as such, the green should be returned to its original form, or its alleged form.   And, I favor the original form because we can visualize and reconstruct it with absolute certainty, whereas, the alleged alteration is subject to doubt, and interpretation at best.

It's even recorded what his purpose in doing that was. But in so doing he told his two closest friends there that he planned to remove the pimple because he built it to be only temporary.

Yes, but you're leaving out the most important part, the part where he wants to replace it with a ridge like feature that would accomplish the same thing, function as he intended.

He NEVER wanted to remove the pimple and leave the green void of a defining contour.   You know that, but have chosen to ignore that important factor and fact.[/color]

If you want to dispute that documentation I really wonder what you plan to use that's factual. You are interested in FACTS rather than speculation, aren't you?

I've stated ALL OF THE FACTS, not just a select few as  you have[/color]

It did exist but if there's clear documentation that Crump considered it temporary and planned to remove it and to construct in its place some kind of a ridge in the green, that certainly should be seriously considered, don't you think?


I've said that a dozen times, put your reading glasses on.[/color]

I would not suggest they restore the pimple that Crump intended as temporary but I would suggest they consider doing what he eventually planned to do---eg put a ridge into the green for the very same reason he planned to do just that.

The problem I have with your choice is that it's based on conjecture, on third party sources, while the original green is indisputable in its design, construction and authorship.[/color]

[Paul_Turner]

Patrick

We'll have to disagree with the merits of the green.  I didn't find it bland or forgiving.  

I don't think a pimple in that green fits with rest of the greens at PVGC, as they are today.  When Crump built it, perhaps it did fit the course better since greens such as 8 and 11 had severe tiers.  But no more.  A tier doesn't really fit either.

The 16th at NGLA is certainly a forgiving green would a pimple add interest to it?  A large pimple would certainly be more in keeping with the other greens at NGLA when compared with the greens at PVGC.

[Patrick_Mucci]

We'll have to disagree with the merits of the green.  I didn't find it bland or forgiving.  

Paul, you seriously don't find the punchbowl nature of the green forgiving on approach and recovery shots ?

At more than 11,000 square feet you don't find it bland ?

I don't think a pimple in that green fits with rest of the greens at PVGC, as they are today.  

Do the 1st, 3rd and 6th greens at NGLA fit in with the others ?

When Crump built it, perhaps it did fit the course better since greens such as 8 and 11 had severe tiers.  But no more.  A tier doesn't really fit either.

The 16th at NGLA is certainly a forgiving green would a pimple add interest to it?  

Two points

CBM didn't design it with a pimple, and
The 16th at NGLA is a fraction of the size of # 18 at PV, and on that basis alone, a pimple wouldn't work.

A large pimple would certainly be more in keeping with the other greens at NGLA when compared with the greens at PVGC.

That's not true.

How can you put a large pimple on a small green ?
Especially a green with substantive perimeter slope,
The interpolation and comparison doesn't work between # 16 at NGLA and # 18 at PV.  It's a flawed analogy on scale alone.

And, # 16 is a breather hole, not the finishing hole on a golf course designed and perceive as a "championship test" for the best players in America.

# 18 green at PV is not, in its present form, a "championship" green.   It was when Crump designed and built it.

[JESII]

Patrick, Have you ever played that hole to a short right pin? How about the one back center at the base of the small mound? I think if you had your opinion of the 18th green might be a bit different.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, Have you ever played that hole to a short right pin? How about the one back center at the base of the small mound? I think if you had your opinion of the 18th green might be a bit different.


JES II,

If you hit your approach to the middle of the green, irrespective of where the hole is located, do you really feel that a top caliber golfer is challenged with the putt or putts he faces ?[/color]

DMoriarty,

Rustic Canyon is on my wish list when I visit Southern California, which might happen when ND plays USC.

[JESII]

Pat,

Along with the way back center pin on #2, I think the short right pin on #18 is about the best most difficult pin on the golf course. If you settle for the middle of the green to that pin you (and I, and Ben Crenshaw) will have a challenge getting down in two. Impossible? No! Is it the toughest green on a finishing hole anywhere? No. Does the green provide interest from the fairway? Yes, considering the sidehill lie in the fairway and the left-to-right slope of the green coupled with the front half front-to-back slope the player is left trying to manipulate his ball against the forces of nature. It's an interesting green that would not benefit from the replacement of a large pimple.

Considering your position about removed features and restoration plans or projects, do you feel the right thing to do in that regard is also maintain the course in the same manner the original architect may have known. Should Pine Valley maintain all of their greens at the same speed as when George Crump built them? Doing that would certainly open up an entirely new set of pin positions on all golf courses, do you think?

[redanman]

11,000 sq ft is bland so wht is #10 at Friar's Head at 18,000 sq ft?

Blander?
Blandest?
Most bland?

Some think gweatist .......  huhuhuhuhuhuh (Elmer Fudd imitation)

[JESII]

Bill,

I think he was referring to an 11,000 sq ft punchbowl being bland. He seems to be implying that it virtually impossible to miss the green and once on it all balls go to the same spot. It actually makes you wonder if he's ever played there but I know he'll come back and ask if I played there in the 60's, as he did.

[TEPaul]

"If Crump had any desire to remove the pimple, it was only to replace it with another internal feature, a ridge, that would provide a similar function."

Pat:

A number of times I've told you that Crump did have every intention of removing that pimple and replacing it with some form of a ridge running from there to the right side of the green (He told both Carr and Smith that the pimple was 'temporary'). He put that pimple there, in his words; 'To penalize golfers who sliced their approach across the green.'

"If you hit your approach to the middle of the green, irrespective of where the hole is located, do you really feel that a top caliber golfer is challenged with the putt or putts he faces ?"

He sure can be particularly if the pin is front right. You can get it close to the front right pin but generally you have to hit a good drive and a pretty precise approach. Coming from anywhere above that front right pin can be pretty intense.

You never know on that green, though. One time in the Crump I was playing Joel Hirsch from Chicago and he was like one up on me all day. It was just one of those matches I felt I wasn't gonna win as we were both playing good, particularly him. He was one up on me going to #18 and I made par and Joel hit a spectacular approach to the right and right under the front right pin about 15-17 ft. I thought he might birdie that hole and I had all my stuff off and in the bag and inexplicably he 3 putted by hitting his first putt way too hard and we went to overtime. You never know on that green. Another mistake a lot of players who don't know that course well tend to make is when the pin is way back on that green and you're basically putting right up at it. That putt is the slowest putt on the golf course---always.

And, Patrick, the 18th green at PVGC is definitely not a punchbowl green. There's definitely no bowl effect to it on the right side. When those greens are firm and fast, if you hit an approach even right into the middle of the green (side to side) your ball will invariably get off the green on the right. You can argue your point all you want but that's a fact.

Sully, I'd have to think not many people know that course and its nuances as well as you do but that never stopped Patrick from explaining things to people anyway. Did you know the first green would make a great skyline?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Along with the way back center pin on #2, I think the short right pin on #18 is about the best most difficult pin on the golf course.

I think there are a good number of hole locations on # 2 that are more difficult than your locations on # 18.

The same could be said for # 5, # 15, # 17 and a good number of other greens and particular hole locations.

The problem with your position is it seems to rely on the greens putting at very high speeds on the stimp, which aren't the every day conditions.

If you settle for the middle of the green to that pin you (and I, and Ben Crenshaw) will have a challenge getting down in two.

That's only when the greens are putting ridiculously fast, and when that happens you can find 17 other greens that are more than demanding.

Is it the toughest green on a finishing hole anywhere? No.

Does the green provide interest from the fairway? Yes, considering the sidehill lie in the fairway and the left-to-right slope of the green coupled with the front half front-to-back slope the player is left trying to manipulate his ball against the forces of nature.

That's more a function of the unique cant of the fairway and the elevation of the putting surface rather than the actual putting surface

It's an interesting green that would not benefit from the replacement of a large pimple.

I totally disagree and would ask you these questions.

Would getting to the appropriate area of the green where the hole is cut become more demanding on the approach shot ?

Would getting to the appropriate area of the green where the hole is cut become more demanding on the recovery shot ?

Would putting, having to traverse any portion of the pimple, become more difficult ?

The overwhelming answer is YES to all three.

Crump knew that, that's why he designed the green that way.

That pimple in the green makes the entire hole take a quantum leap competitively.

Considering your position about removed features and restoration plans or projects, do you feel the right thing to do in that regard is also maintain the course in the same manner the original architect may have known.

That's a seperate issue, and shouldn't be confused or blended with the restoration issue.

Should Pine Valley maintain all of their greens at the same speed as when George Crump built them?

Again, that's a seperate issue that shouldn't be confused or blended with the issue of restoration.

Doing that would certainly open up an entirely new set of pin positions on all golf courses, do you think?

I think excessive speeds have deprived PV of some wonderful hole locations.

Extremes in either direction aren't beneficial.

Thanks for trying to help Bill with his reading comprehension.

But, on approach shots and recoveries, is # 18 green forgiving or punitive ?

Feel free to answer the question in the context of the 2000's.

[Patrick_Mucci]

A number of times I've told you that Crump did have every intention of removing that pimple and replacing it with some form of a ridge running from there to the right side of the green (He told both Carr and Smith that the pimple was 'temporary'). He put that pimple there, in his words; 'To penalize golfers who sliced their approach across the green.'

TEPaul,

How many times do I have to repeat my position that Crump always intended for there to be an internal feature, be it pimple, mound or ridge within that putting green.

You keep confirming that, while attempting to dispute me in some convoluted way.[/color]

"If you hit your approach to the middle of the green, irrespective of where the hole is located, do you really feel that a top caliber golfer is challenged with the putt or putts he faces ?"

He sure can be particularly if the pin is front right. You can get it close to the front right pin but generally you have to hit a good drive and a pretty precise approach. Coming from anywhere above that front right pin can be pretty intense.

We all know that that basically applies when the green speeds are fast to super fast, which isn't that frequent.

The green is a fairly benign green[/color]

You never know on that green, though. One time in the Crump I was playing Joel Hirsch from Chicago and he was like one up on me all day. It was just one of those matches I felt I wasn't gonna win as we were both playing good, particularly him. He was one up on me going to #18 and I made par and Joel hit a spectacular approach to the right and right under the front right pin about 15-17 ft. I thought he might birdie that hole and I had all my stuff off and in the bag and inexplicably he 3 putted by hitting his first putt way too hard and we went to overtime. You never know on that green.

Another mistake a lot of players who don't know that course well tend to make is when the pin is way back on that green and you're basically putting right up at it. That putt is the slowest putt on the golf course---always.

Perhaps they should add minimum IQ requirements in addition to handicap requirements.   [/color]

And, Patrick, the 18th green at PVGC is definitely not a punchbowl green. There's definitely no bowl effect to it on the right side.

I described it as saucer-punchbowl like, and think that provides an accurate description to those who haven't seen the green.   You even said, in the paragraph above, that when the pin is in the very back of the green that you have to putt uphill.[/color]

When those greens are firm and fast, if you hit an approach even right into the middle of the green (side to side) your ball will invariably get off the green on the right. You can argue your point all you want but that's a fact.

Perhaps if you hit a low, lined slice, like you do, that's what you'll experience.  I've never seen a well played, well struck ball unrewarded.  And, if you play those greens when they're firm and fast, which green isn't a severe challenge ?

I submit that # 18 is one of the easier tests you'll face that day, primarily due to it's size of over 11,000 sq/ft.[/color]

Sully, I'd have to think not many people know that course and its nuances as well as you do but that never stopped Patrick from explaining things to people anyway. Did you know the first green would make a great skyline?  

I thought that you had conceded that point ages ago.

Throw in # 2, # 9 and # 17.

I love skyline greens.

But, let's forget them for a second.

Removing the "framing" trees behind the 1st green would enhance the hole.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"I think there are a good number of hole locations on # 2 that are more difficult than your locations on # 18.

The same could be said for # 5, # 15, # 17 and a good number of other greens and particular hole locations.

The problem with your position is it seems to rely on the greens putting at very high speeds on the stimp, which aren't the every day conditions."

Patrick:

That's a pretty fair point. You surprise me sometimes.  

[TEPaul]

"That's more a function of the unique cant of the fairway and the elevation of the putting surface rather than the actual putting surface"

Patrick:

You're wrong about that. The fairway cant is no big deal, nor is the raised green. The putting surface is really canted left to right (it is not a bowl as you've termed it). When those greens are firm and of usual speed they can't really pin that green to the left of the middle (side to side) and the ball on approach gets right more dramatically than most suspect---eg it's very possible to hit the extreme left of the green surface and have your ball filter right well past the middle. I admit, in my experiences there, I'm usually coming into that green with some pretty long club----but nevertheless.

[Paul_Turner]

Patrick

I don't have much to add to other's comments.  But would agree that the left to right cant in the green fits the natural  tendency to fade the approach.  I liked that.

Isn't one of Pine Valley's trump card its variet of green sizes?  From the diminutive 8th to the enormous 18th.  By returning the pimple, the 18th green would be effectively shrunk.

I don't see greens 1 3 and 6 not fitting with the rest??  Their degree of contouring is in line with the others.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"That's more a function of the unique cant of the fairway and the elevation of the putting surface rather than the actual putting surface"

Patrick:

You're wrong about that. The fairway cant is no big deal, nor is the raised green. The putting surface is really canted left to right (it is not a bowl as you've termed it).

TEPaul,

Think about what you're saying.

A fairway that cants left to right and slopes away from you will promote a low trajectory fade-slice.

Insert an elevated green into the equation and the approach shot gets more difficult.

The left and rear of the green are elevated above the mid-point of the green, and to me, that inserts an element of forgiveness with the approach and recoveries.[/color]

When those greens are firm and of usual speed they can't really pin that green to the left of the middle (side to side) and the ball on approach gets right more dramatically than most suspect---eg it's very possible to hit the extreme left of the green surface and have your ball filter right well past the middle. I admit, in my experiences there, I'm usually coming into that green with some pretty long club----but nevertheless.

I understand that.

But, the green itself doesn't present the putting challenge, or approach challenge that would be presented if a pimple existed in the middle of the green.

It would be even harder to reach the area where the hole is cut.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't have much to add to other's comments.  But would agree that the left to right cant in the green fits the natural  tendency to fade the approach.  I liked that.

Isn't one of Pine Valley's trump card its variet of green sizes?  From the diminutive 8th to the enormous 18th.  By returning the pimple, the 18th green would be effectively shrunk.

Not really.

The green would remain at 11,000 + sq/ft.

But, the challenge on the approach, recovery and putting would be enhanced, which is fitting of an 18th hole on a "championship" golf course.

The 8th, which is about 1/4 the size of the 18th has contour and slope.  The 18th presents no undue challenge.

I don't see greens 1 3 and 6 not fitting with the rest??  Their degree of contouring is in line with the others.

You're confusing PV with NGLA.

[JESII]

Pat (and Tom Paul),

When I said the front right pin on #18 was "along with the back center pin on #2, the best, most difficult on the course" I was referring to the combination of approaching, recovering to and putting to that location. My position is not based on green speed. You assumed that for the very simple reason that almost every putt to that front right pin on #18 is downhill that speed is the only reason for it being more difficult. Tell me, which pin on #5 is more difficult to putt to than front right #18? How about on #15? I won't even address #17 because you're obviously so far off base it'd be a waste of time.


My quote:

It's an interesting green that would not benefit from the replacement of a large pimple.

Your response:

I totally disagree and would ask you these questions.

Would getting to the appropriate area of the green where the hole is cut become more demanding on the approach shot ?

Would getting to the appropriate area of the green where the hole is cut become more demanding on the recovery shot ?

Would putting, having to traverse any portion of the pimple, become more difficult ?

The overwhelming answer is YES to all three.

This reveals alot Pat, does more difficult really mean better to you?


You'll have to explain to me why an architects intent does not matter in maintenance issues but is all-important in design issues. Do we expect architects to design in a vacuum?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat (and Tom Paul),

When I said the front right pin on #18 was "along with the back center pin on #2, the best, most difficult on the course" I was referring to the combination of approaching, recovering to and putting to that location.

My position is not based on green speed. You assumed that for the very simple reason that almost every putt to that front right pin on #18 is downhill that speed is the only reason for it being more difficult.

What else is there ?

There's no substantive contouring.
It's only the downhill nature of the putt that makes it challenging.[/color]

Tell me, which pin on #5 is more difficult to putt to than front right #18?

Almost any downhill putt.

The likelihood of de-greening a putt is very high on # 5.[/color]

How about on #15?

A downhill putt when the pin in near the concave crest.
Again, it's not uncommon for putts to be de-greened and run many yards off the green.  I'm surprised you weren't aware of that.[/color]

I won't even address #17 because you're obviously so far off base it'd be a waste of time.

So, it's your contention that there's more slope in the front of # 18 green then there is on # 17 green ?

I don't think you'll get much support for that position.[/color]


My quote:

It's an interesting green that would not benefit from the replacement of a large pimple.

Your response:

I totally disagree and would ask you these questions.

Would getting to the appropriate area of the green where the hole is cut become more demanding on the approach shot ?

Would getting to the appropriate area of the green where the hole is cut become more demanding on the recovery shot ?

Would putting, having to traverse any portion of the pimple, become more difficult ?

The overwhelming answer is YES to all three.

This reveals alot Pat, does more difficult really mean better to you?

What it reveals is your inability to answer those questions.

Please, address and answer each one in order.   Thanks.[/color]

You'll have to explain to me why an architects intent does not matter in maintenance issues but is all-important in design issues.

I understand your desire to shift and divert the focus away from architectural issues to maintainance issues, but, as I stated before, let's stay on topic.   Address the architectural issues ...... if you can.[/color]

Do we expect architects to design in a vacuum ?

Your version would have them desiging in the narrowest of contexts, as if their designs will be frozen in time and only played under certain circumstances, under identical weather and agronomic conditions.

Architects understand that their courses will be played under a variety of circumstances.

Just read the next to the last paragraph on page 295 in Charles Blair MacDonald's, "Scotland's Gift"  It should help to enlighten you.[/color]

[JESII]

Pat,

I'm glad you're awake, because I certainly am. Pour yourself a drink, please.

The pimple issue on #18 - To all three of your questions, the answer is YES, having that pimple in the green makes everything more difficult. Now kindly answer my question....does more difficult, in itself, mean better?

Now, onto the difficulty of that front right pin on #18. You have (at least in the discussions we both have been engaged in) tend to view these architectural features and their values in total. In other words, how they effect play from the beginning of the hole. When playing #5 at Pine Valley, how often are you above the hole? It alomost never happens. The most difficult pin is on the back right and occasionally someone will chip their second shot on this par three over the green, but other than that nobody is ever above that hole. When the hole is cut on the front right pad, the greens need to be very fast (which you've already decided rarely happens) for putting off the green to be any real concern. #15 offers a real challenge, and that crest on the right side is pretty nasty. It may be just about as tough as the two I mentioned (back center #2, and front right #18) and I simply did not think about it, but to really analyze it, it's not as difficult as those other two. #18 has obviously not yet shown its teeth to you, but there is a tremendous amount of visual deception in both line and speed when reading any putt to that portion of the green. #15 does not have a fraction of the deception as #18, it may have a stiffer penalty for a really poor putt, but it does not offer as much challenge in putting it dead.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I'm glad you're awake, because I certainly am. Pour yourself a drink, please.

I've just come back from taking my surgeon and another physician, key to my care, to dinner.  The company, conversation, food and wine were great.
Anything I pour at this point will be Coca Cola.

The pimple issue on #18 - To all three of your questions, the answer is YES, having that pimple in the green makes everything more difficult.

I'm glad we agree on that.

Now kindly answer my question....does more difficult, in itself, mean better?

In this instance, in the context of a "championship test" the answer is yes.

Now, onto the difficulty of that front right pin on #18. You have (at least in the discussions we both have been engaged in) tend to view these architectural features and their values in total. In other words, how they effect play from the beginning of the hole. When playing #5 at Pine Valley, how often are you above the hole? It alomost never happens.

You're falling prey to narrow thinking.

While I'd agree that it rarely happens that you're above the hole on your FIRST shot, it's not uncommon to be above the hole on your second shot.

The most difficult pin is on the back right and occasionally someone will chip their second shot on this par three over the green, but other than that nobody is ever above that hole. When the hole is cut on the front right pad, the greens need to be very fast (which you've already decided rarely happens) for putting off the green to be any real concern. #15 offers a real challenge, and that crest on the right side is pretty nasty. It may be just about as tough as the two I mentioned (back center #2, and front right #18) and I simply did not think about it, but to really analyze it, it's not as difficult as those other two. #18 has obviously not yet shown its teeth to you, but there is a tremendous amount of visual deception in both line and speed when reading any putt to that portion of the green. #15 does not have a fraction of the deception as #18, it may have a stiffer penalty for a really poor putt, but it does not offer as much challenge in putting it dead.


I think your argument supports my contention.
We have a green in excess of 11,000 sq/ft and you can only find one challenging hole location, and then, only under certain conditions of play, very fast putting speeds.

Crump obviously found that the green needed an internal feature that would affect approach, recovery and putting.

He designed and built a pimple in the middle of the green.

Whether he was satisfied with the pimple, or wanted to reconfigure the internal contouring to include a significant ridge to accomplish his purpose is almost immaterial.

What is material is that he intended for that internal feature to challenge the best players of the day.

Since we can't be sure of what he had in mind with respect to the configuration of the ridge, and we can be sure of the configuration of the pimple, my vote would be to go with the known,  the pimple.  
To go with what Crump actually designed and built as his 18th green.

I don't think that's an imprudent course to follow.

[JESII]

PAt,

First of all, since I have not said it in the past, I hope your treatments are going well and your progress is continuing its encouraging course.


Last week we argued about the 17th fairway and the trees that may, or may not impede, an approach shots there. Your main protest was based on the average player hitting a slice with his mid-iron onto that green from the left side of the fairway to the left side of the green being obstructed by trees and how he was entitled to a clear approach. Now you're chastising the 18th green because it is not up to the standards of providing a "championship test". What is your position, provide a championship test, or a test for all levels?

I will repeat, that pin is difficult all the time. And it effects play (for the player thinking about it) all the way back to the tee. It only needs fast conditions to the extent that any pin anywhere gets more respect under fast conditions. Front right on #18 is very, very tough for the best players there are.

When you refer to a pin on #5 that can easily produce a de-greened putt, how many locations does that cover? Only one. Front right on the small flat. How about #15? Also only one. Again, the front right perch. Maybe we're finding a weakness here.

I'll defer the designers intent argument to Tom Paul and yourself in as far as that pimple or a ridge of some sort are concerned. I really have no idea what was built or what was intended but I know what's on the ground and it's pretty good.

[TEPaul]

Look, Pat, you can just forget about the restoration of that pimple the way it was on the 18th green at PVGC. Nobody would want something like that permanently, other than perhaps some bumble-headed ultra stubborn advocate such as you.

Crump didn't want it permanently----eg nobody did. In play and with maintenance today it would be a disaster, a virtual over-the-top joke.

And quit telling me I'm convoluted about what Crump wanted or what you're saying. After-all, I'm the one who supplied you with all the research information on that pimple, what Crump thought about it and what he planned to do about it. There's no other conceivable way you could've known about that.  How easily you seem to forget that.  

And quit telling me what the approach to the 18th "plays like"---I know what it plays like---I've probably played it 300 or more times---and in all kinds of seasons, winds, weather etc.  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Let's say they did restore the pimple on #18 to the dimensions it was. Would you mind that its mow height would have to be much higher than the rest of the green because that's the way it would have to be.

Another example of that kind of thing is the in-line ridges on GCGC's old #12. It seems many have assumed those in line ridges were greenspace. They weren't---they were in rough grass. You did realize that, did you not?

[wsmorrison]

"A number of times I've told you that Crump did have every intention of removing that pimple and replacing it with some form of a ridge running from there to the right side of the green (He told both Carr and Smith that the pimple was 'temporary'). He put that pimple there, in his words; 'To penalize golfers who sliced their approach across the green.'

I am missing how this "pimple" worked to penalize a sliced approach.  It is so small in scale relative to the size of the very large green (18000 sf) that it would really impact a small percentage of approach shots.  I think a ridge a much more effective and natural looking feature.  I don't like horseshoes and other overtly artificial devices on any course, even engineered ones such as Raynor and Banks.  On a course such as Pine Valley the pimple looks out of place.  Given the functionality couldn't have been all that much (I may be wrong on this--someone please explain) I don't see why it was built in the first place and agree that it is better to pop that pimple than leave it.  The size of the green is itself a factor that can lead to three putting which, combined with the green slopes, puts enough demand on a properly placed approach.


Let's say they did restore the pimple on #18 to the dimensions it was. Would you mind that its mow height would have to be much higher than the rest of the green because that's the way it would have to be."



I would hope a superintendent might weigh in on this issue.  I cannot believe they could mow something like this at today's grass heights.

I like the exposed hillside along the left fairway.  Note the ribbon of exposed sand near the base of the slope.  It looks like the mounds in the bunkering before the stream were kept as sand and not turfed over with vegetation.