Can you create interest and challenge by simple means ?

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

They could mow it at today's green height alright---they could just continue to mow it into scalped dirt!  

Patrick, and his advocacy of the restoration of the pimple despite all the evidence of why it was considered by Crump to be temporary, is becoming laughable.

If George Crump took that golf course as far as he did before his untimely death I think what's known to be his wishes for it should be seriously considered. To me that's one of the more impressive aspects of that so-called 1921 Advisory committee that finished the course off a couple of years after he died. We do know a number of things he clearly stated he wanted to do. The irony of the great PVGC's architecture is there's actually a good deal more about it that Crump considered to be temporary.

[TEPaul]

By the way, look at that old original 9th green up there on the right---amazing. Unfortunately that one didn't work well at all---no one thought so.

[wsmorrison]

I missed that view of the old 9th, thanks.

But you didn't answer one of my questions.  How would that small pimple (compared to the huge green) really have been effective in penalizing sliced approaches to the 18th green?  Why slices more than hooks or straight balls for that matter?

[TEPaul]

Well, I'll be damned!

It's been a while now since I read those so-called "Remembrances" which are the hole by hole chronicles from Crump's two best friends at PVGC about what Crump told them and what they understood from him that he wanted to do with various aspects on most all holes at PVGC.

There's no question that pimple was considered temporary by Crump and he was just using it as an experiment and it's mentioned what he was thinking of as a feature to replace it but all of this was considered by both Crump and his friends and others because they all felt that green was too big and too bland.

So it's painful to admit but Patrick Mucci, the block-headed ultra stubborn golf analyst, is actually right about the fact that green was considered bland. It's true that Pat can actually be right but only about 2% of the time. This is apparently one of those instances of that 2%.  

In the next post I'll quote in the entirety what both Carr and Smith said about the 18th green and Crump's feelings about it.

[TEPaul]

Dr. Carr:
"George saw players drive down close to the cross bunker and he determined to do something to make the last shot of the round something harder than a mashie or mashie-niblick. Just what he never determined. He always intended to modify the hump on the green into a heavy roll reaching to the right hand rear corner to give the player who sliced onto the green a more difficult putt than the player who plays straight to the center."

W.P. Smith:
"10/10/17. He will take out the hump on the green when he gets ready. He put it in to test if anything could be designed to penalize a sliced shot, the green being so large a bad slice might stay on it. He will put in a roll instead of the hump. The green needs character on account of its size."

[TEPaul]

Wayne's got a good point. What difference does it make if a player sliced the ball across that green which concerned Crump as opposed to anything else?

Can you imagine trying to recover to the pin in that photo if you were in a position where that photo was taken from which is directly behind the green?

Patrick Mucci who's the only one I've ever heard of who actually advocates restoring that pimple is such a block-head he'd probably also recommend a hole location right on the top of that pimple.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dr. Carr:
"George saw players drive down close to the cross bunker and he determined to do something to make the last shot of the round something harder than a mashie or mashie-niblick. Just what he never determined. He always intended to modify the hump on the green into a heavy roll reaching to the right hand rear corner to give the player who sliced onto the green a more difficult putt than the player who plays straight to the center."

W.P. Smith:
"10/10/17. He will take out the hump on the green when he gets ready. He put it in to test if anything could be designed to penalize a sliced shot, the green being so large a bad slice might stay on it. He will put in a roll instead of the hump.
[size=8x]
The green needs character on account of its size."[/size]

Paul Turner & Redanman,

Did you read what was said by Carr and Smith ?

Are Crump, Carr, Smith and Mucci in perfect harmony on this issue ?


Wayne Morrison,

The answer to your question was answered by TEPaul some time ago when he referenced the 5th green at Somerset Hills.

The mounds and contours on the greens on holes # 1, # 3 and # 6 at NGLA would seem to confirm that that mound could be adequately maintained at today's speeds.

But, if you have doubts, just look at how successful they are at maintaining greens # 2 and # 3 at PV.

Maintainance isn't the issue.

It's a GREAT feature that should be restored.[/color]

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

I would think the change in slope from the surrounding green to the pimple is too abrupt and the top of the pimple is too small to adequately mow at today's heights.  Let's see what some of the superintendents think.

I say pop the pimple idea.  If anything, the ridge idea is a good one to execute.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

You still don't get it do you? The pimple should not be restored because Crump didn't want to keep it. Do you understand what the word "temporary" means? If anything should be done to that greens it's precisely what Carr and Smith said Crump wanted to do there.

By the way, just show that photo above to any superintendend in the country and ask him if a mound of that proportion could be mowed at today's greenspeed. I doubt you know much about mowing putting greens.  

By the way, do you realize those rolls in the old 12th at GCGC were not greenspace? I don't recall you mentioning that they weren't.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

You still don't get it do you? The pimple should not be restored because Crump didn't want to keep it.

It's alleged that Crump didn't want to keep it.
There appears to be no written evidence in Crump's writings to support that position.

But, let's assume, for the very briefest of moments, that I agree with you.

The dilema is as follows.
If you want to be true to Crump's design, what's the configuration of the substantive ridge ?

Noone knows.

So the question would be:
Do you restore to the known ?   The pimple that Crump designed and constructed within the 18th green.   OR,
Do you design and construct the phantom ridge absent detailed plans ?

And, that's where I vote for the former, because it's a known commodity with photographic evidence that could be used to restore it precisely as it was.

Would you entrust Fazio to carry out what you allege are Crump's wishes as evidenced by Carr's and Smith's writings ?

We also don't know if Crump changed his mind, or if he revealed ALL of his thoughts to Carr and Smith.

What we do know is that he designed and built that pimple in the middle of the 18th green.

Do you understand what the word "temporary" means?

Sure, it's used to describe the times when you appear to know what you're talking about.
If I'm not mistaken, it's quantified in nano-seconds.

If anything should be done to that greens it's precisely what Carr and Smith said Crump wanted to do there.

TE, and that's the problem, we can't covert Carr's and Smith's words to a finite design.

Any substantive ridge would be interpretive.

It is clear, that the intention was always to have a pronounced feature within that green.
And, since irrefutable evidence exists, solely relative to the pimple, it alone should be restored.

By the way, just show that photo above to any superintendend in the country and ask him if a mound of that proportion could be mowed at today's greenspeed. I doubt you know much about mowing putting greens.  

I have every confidence that the superintendent who more than adequately maintains the 2nd green at PV, could easily maintain that pimple

By the way, do you realize those rolls in the old 12th at GCGC were not greenspace? I don't recall you mentioning that they weren't.

I'm not so sure of that.
The next time I'm at GCGC I'll review the photos.
I believe, in discussions relative to restoring that green, that some felt it best to have those mounds outside of the putting surface in order to minimize maintainance issues.

I probably won't be at GCGC until next weekend or the end of April

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne & TEPaul,

Don't view things in a negative context.

Don't look for reasons why something can't be done.
Look for reasons why it CAN be done.

I'll devote a thread to this subject shortly.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne & TEPaul,

Would you prefer to play the current green, or the one pictured above ?

Which one is more interesting ?

Which one is more fun ?

Which one is more challenging ?

It's a no-brainer.

[wsmorrison]

I prefer the one today.  I don't see the great interest in a small hump in such a large green.  Rarely would it come into play so it would simply look contrived and out of place at Pine Valley.  

I don't think it adds a lot of challenge to almost any shot into the green.  Yes, it makes for a difficult putt if you have to go over it, especially back to front.  What if the pin is just in front of the pimple and the ball is just behind it or vice versa?  That's interesting?  I don't think so.  But then again, I don't like horseshoes or other contrived looking man-made features on greens.  I think they are silly and anti-naturalistic.  I know you like these features, but by now it must be clear I don't.  So you can understand my lack of regard for them.

Now if you said what about the current green versus the proposed ridge that seemed to be Crump's ultimate goal, then I would say I'd go with a ridge for greater interest and increased shot demand on the approach.

I appreciate that you think it is a no-brainer for you, but it can't be inescapable that others may feel differently, right?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I prefer the one today.  

I don't see the great interest in a small hump in such a large green.  

It's not so small, take another look at the picture.

Rarely would it come into play so it would simply look contrived and out of place at Pine Valley.

It doesn't look contrived or out of place in the photo and it would come into play in a variety of situations.
A back hole location.
A shot hit long
A shot hit to the wrong side of the pimple.
The restoration of the pimple would make the green-hole take a quantum leap for the better.  

I don't think it adds a lot of challenge to almost any shot into the green.  

Wayne, please, please look more carefully at that photo.
If you don't think that pimple adds challenge to the approach, you must be playing to a + 6 handicap, or drinking some of TEPaul's cool-ade.

Yes, it makes for a difficult putt if you have to go over it, especially back to front.  

What about recoveries that would have to traverse it ?

What if the pin is just in front of the pimple and the ball is just behind it or vice versa?  That's interesting?  I don't think so.  But then again, I don't like horseshoes or other contrived looking man-made features on greens.  

YIKES, you're kidding, right ?
CBM, SR and CB are doing about 5,000 rpms in their graves.  


I think they are silly and anti-naturalistic.  I know you like these features, but by now it must be clear I don't.  So you can understand my lack of regard for them.

YIKES.

Now if you said what about the current green versus the proposed ridge that seemed to be Crump's ultimate goal, then I would say I'd go with a ridge for greater interest and increased shot demand on the approach.

It's clear that the green needs either:

1.  The pimple restored
2.  The ridge installed

The difficulty is:  Who gets to design the ridge ?

And that's why I prefer the restoration.

I appreciate that you think it is a no-brainer for you, but it can't be inescapable that others may feel differently, right?

That will depend on how that idiot-savant, TEPaul, answers the question.

P.S.

I believe that the mounds or bunkers are on the far side of the water, in or adjacent to the fairway.

The elevation of the green and the angle of the photo screens off the fronting land below the green.
Portions of the water are clearly visible to the left and the topography of the land in the photo is from high right to low left, hence I feel that the fronting water existed at the time of this photo.

[Patrick_Mucci]

[size=rx]
Well, I'll be damned![/size]

It's been a while now since I read those so-called "Remembrances" which are the hole by hole chronicles from Crump's two best friends at PVGC about what Crump told them and what they understood from him that he wanted to do with various aspects on most all holes at PVGC.

There's no question that pimple was considered temporary by Crump and he was just using it as an experiment and it's mentioned what he was thinking of as a feature to replace it [size=4x]but all of this was considered by both Crump and his friends and others because they all felt that green was too big and too bland.[/size]
[size=4x]
So it's painful to admit but Patrick Mucci, the block-headed ultra stubborn golf analyst, [size=4x]IS ACTUALLY RIGHT about the fact that green was considered bland. [/size]

It's true that Pat can actually be right but only about 2% of the time. This is apparently one of those instances of that 2%.  

Would now be the appropriate time to tell all those on GCA.com that you're dyslexic and actually mean 98 % of the time ? [/color]

In the next post I'll quote in the entirety what both Carr and Smith said about the 18th green and Crump's feelings about it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I'm glad that you brought up the 18th green at PV because it's a green that many are familiar with.

On a hole I'm familiar with, the green used to be a tiny, angled, kidney shaped green, well bunkered.

Many years ago the green was enlarged by multiples, banked to assist approach shots.  As a result, it's easy to hit and relatively easy to putt.

Consideration was given to inserting a mound, not dissimilar from the one at # 18 at PV, which Wayne pictured.

For whatever reason the club will not restore the green to its unique kidney shaped configuration, however, a mound was being considered.

I couldn't help but think how much this minor adjustment would enhance the hole, on the approach, recovery and putts.

With the increase in play over the last 50 years and the resultant increase in the size of greens, wouldn't features like this add greatly to the play of these holes ?

And, the cost to add these features is nominal, as is the disruption to play.

Why don't we see more of them ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I consider your recommendation to restore that pimple to the 18th green at PVGC now closed. You never saw it, and you never played it so it would probably be best for you to concede the issue to ALL the members of PVGC who do remember it and played it. NO ONE wanted to see it stay and no one wants to see it resotored. It ain't gonna happen so you might as well just drop the issue. It's easy to suggest it's restoration on here to people who never saw or played it either but in reality it's not a good suggestion and would never be considered.

Crump definitely considered it to be temporary and so it was.

I didn't see that you answered my question on those in-line berms on the old 12th at GCGC. Were they greenspace or not?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I consider your recommendation to restore that pimple to the 18th green at PVGC now closed.

WHY ?

It's what Crump, Carr and Smith said they wanted, an interesting feature to challeng players on the finishing hole.

They admit, that without the feature, the green is uninteresting, bland and offers little in the way of challenge.

You never saw it, and you never played it so it would probably be best for you to concede the issue to ALL the members of PVGC who do remember it and played it.

Could you remind me again, what was the year it was removed ?

So, your new concept is: If we never saw it in person, or never played it, we shouldn't restore it ?   ?   ?

How would you apply that convoluted logic to the 12th at GCGC ?

How would you apply you theory to other clubs where most, if not all of the members never saw the original feature ?

By your method restorations would be or become things of the past as no survivors are around who saw or played original features, holes and courses built at the turn and begining of the 20th Century

NO ONE wanted to see it stay and no one wants to see it resotored.

That's not true.
Crump designed and built it.
And, according to you Crump, Carr and Smith agreed unanimously that the green needed a pronounced feature.
Why are you resisting the fulfillment of their stated and written desires ?

It ain't gonna happen so you might as well just drop the issue.

NO, it's just the opposite.
It won't happen if you drop the meritorious idea of restoration.
You're guilty of the same benign neglect that's gone on in the past.

Crump, Carr and Smith all wanted that green to have a pronounced feature, be it mound or ridge, so why are you going against their firm written position on this matter ?

It's easy to suggest it's restoration on here to people who never saw or played it either but in reality it's not a good suggestion and would never be considered.

So we should just forget about all restorations, because, let's face it, in the year 2006, who's ever seen or played most of the works in their original forms in the early 1900's.

We should ignore Crump's, Carr's and Smith's designs and thoughts ?   ?  ?

I'm shocked at your lack of vision, obtuseness and plain blockheaded resistance to a valid restoration/alteration that had the blessing of the original architect and two of his close friends and members.

But, you seem to have a blind spot when it comes to PV and I understand that.

Crump definitely considered it to be temporary and so it was.
Perhaps it was in the context of: "until he could come up with a better feature"  such as the ridge that's mentioned.
Then again, perhaps it wasn't, and that's why it stayed in existance as long as he did.

I didn't see that you answered my question on those in-line berms on the old 12th at GCGC. Were they greenspace or not?

I did answer that question.
Go back and reread my response.

[DMoriarty]

How would that small pimple (compared to the huge green) really have been effective in penalizing sliced approaches to the 18th green?  Why slices more than hooks or straight balls for that matter?

Wayne, I havent played the course, so this is pure speculation on my part based on playing courses with somewhat similar types of features.   The photo makes it look like the pimple is in right  back portion of the green.  A ball "slicing across the green" would likely end up over and right of the green and the golfer would then have to consider the hump on just about any shot to any place on the green.  Is this possibly what he meant?

As for the mowing,  Again I am not familar with the location, but it doesnt look that severe to me.  

[JESII]

Pat,

Per your post #68, Tom is suggesting the pimple restoration effort stop, he is supportive of a ridge.

[wsmorrison]

David,

That is an 18,000 sf green.  A feature of that proportion would not have affected play all that much.  It was on the back and not on the right if I recall properly, left center maybe.  It is my belief that the angle in the photo I posted is misleading.  I have other views of the green and it isn't definitive from these photographs.  I'm sure Tom Paul knows were it was.

As for the mowing ability, I don't know either but I suspect it could not be done at today's heights.  Again, I wish a superintendent would weigh in on this as it is an important factor.

[JESII]

Wayne,

Why do you think it is an important factor? Is it because Pat Mucci really, really thinks they should restore it. Perhaps he'll go down there one night with that photo you posted, hop over the fence out by #2 tee and perform his own restoration procedure.

[TEPaul]

"Could you remind me again, what was the year it was removed?"

Patrick:

It was removed in 1928.

"So, your new concept is: If we never saw it in person, or never played it, we shouldn't restore it "

Who is "we"? Is it you and me and everyone else with an opinion or is it a decision for PVGC and/or those who belong there? No new concept here---I'm simply saying to you that you should concede the point because it's pretty obvious no member of PVGC wants it restored and it's their call and not yours.  

"How would you apply that convoluted logic to the 12th at GCGC?"

Nothing convoluted---I'd apply it the same way I would with PVGC. It's a membership call, not mine. You belong there so feel free to lobby the membership for the restoraton of #12 all you want.

"How would you apply you theory to other clubs where most, if not all of the members never saw the original feature?
By your method restorations would be or become things of the past as no survivors are around who saw or played original features, holes and courses built at the turn and begining of the 20th Century."

A club and its membership generally have access to records that shed some light on these things. In the case of the pimple on #18 at PVGC there're ample records about the plans for, the feeling about, and the disposition of that pimple on #18.

Again, it's their call and not yours and not mine so my suggestion to you is to let the issue go. I realize you sometimes get into demanding things from clubs you don't belong to and probably don't know that intimately like you did when you demanded that Merion let you see its Master Plan or Mission Statement for their bunker project.

Clearly they are not going to let you see those things. The only non-member that any club entrusts with their records and plans is me, and most definitely not you. Most clubs do not trust people who are known to be wrong 98% of the time.  

[JESII]

Tom,

Can you go into any further detail about the ridge you guys have been discussing on that 18th green? The pimple looks pretty deep in the green and I thought I remembered you mention earlier in this thread that the ridge would start about where that pimple is and run towards the back-left corner of the green. Is that right? How deep into the green is that pimple? Do you know if the green is 11,000 sq ft as Pat says or 18,000 sq ft as Wayne mentions?

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

Sorry, it was 13,000 sf.  I couldn't tell if it was an 8 or a 3.  I went back to the Dec 1923 Green Section Bulletin to find out.