[Mike_Sweeney]

I know there are reports of Pine Valley pulling out trees, and I understand that it will not take it back to the old look.

Here is a picture I think Paul Turner originally posted of the old PV 17 with the flag at the top of the hill over the bunkering. What I love is you can see the green, and there is the thought to go at it today (with modern technology), thus over the right side bunkering and leave a little lob wedge in. The smart play for me is to play left and leave a full wedge in as anything under 80 yards is a struggle for me.

Unfortunately, I do not have a modern picture from 17 tee, only the fairway in, but you are visually cut off so your only option today off the tee is left into the fairway.

This is similar to Yale 14 where Scott Ramsey has open up the visual line from the tee to green by removing trees, thus tempting the golfer to hit down towards the green with many penalties for poorly executed shots.

Can't Pine Valley just listen to me on this one?

Old PV 17


Via Mike Erdman - 17 tee last Spring



PV 17 from fairway last fall


Old PV 17 from fairway

Yale 14

[Mike_Cirba]

Paging Sully...Paging Sully...

Now if someone could get an early pic of 12 up there matched against the present similarly choked, blinded scenario.  

[Mike Erdmann]

Mike Sweeney,

Here's a current photo from the 17th tee, this from last April.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Mike Sweeney,

Here's a current photo from the 17th tee, this from last April.

Thanks original post has been updated. Now Tom Paul, get to work over there!

[JESII]

OK MC, let's have at it.

This hole would be a tremendous case study if we had as many images as possible in one spot for the sake of comparison.

About #17, I can't really speak of the "old right" fairway area other than to say I see virtuall zero chance of that ever coming back simply because of its proximity to the railroad tracks. What is on the ground right now gives very little reason to attempt to find that small area of fairway in the right corner because the penalty for missing it is at least one shot and the reward (admitting there is a reward) is quite modest. The angle of the green and the contours of the fairway suggest playing to the center / left-center of the fairway. No Patrick, not the left 15 feet that might deal with tree obstructions, 15 - 20 yards right of that.   The middle left pin is the only one that offers a distinct advantage to the player on that small right pad, and for that advantage a risk should be taken, in my opinion.

All of this supports my statements that all the tree removal in the world will do one thing at Pine Valley, it will improve the visual presentation to those of us that appreciate the open roomy look and feel of golf courses with such. It will not offer wider playing corridors and strategic angles to certain hole locations.

#12 can be a different conversation, or part of this one if you like.

[TEPaul]

MikeS:

First of all those photos have to be before 1921 as that green (and hole) is Crump's original, not what is there now.

Crump's original hole had no bunkering (waste bunkering) from about 80 yards in. His hole was fairway to the green.

The green you see in that photo that is Crump's original  basically didn't work well at all because of a very radical, shallow, sharp tier on the back of the green. (there were 6-8 original Crump greens that didn't work well either in play or for maintenance reasons around their surrounds that had to be changed later).


The green that is there now is something of an Alision redesign. Alison did two green redesign iterations and it appears to me (looking at both Alison redesign iteration drawings) what was built there is some combination of both Alison green redesign iterations.

I do not believe Alison was around when that redesinged green was built (apparently to some combination of his design specs). So who did the work? I don't think anyone really knows exactly but since it was redone in 1921 it was probably done under the supervision of the Wilsons of Merion with perhaps William Flynn and foreman Jim Govan doing or supervising the work.

The right alternate fairway was not Crump's idea, it was Alison's, at least it would appear so reading Alison's rather comprehensive notes on the hole and how he felt it should work conceptually and strategically.

The entire strategy (ideal or aggressive strategy) of one of Alison's redesign iterations of #17 revolved around the high risk drive up to the right to the alternate fairway (which I believe was attached to the left fairway by a fairway tongue).

That's the way Alison described the strategy of the hole in one interation and that's the way he redesigned that green in one iteration---eg to best receive a shot from the right fairway. Alison's idea if one drove the ball into the easier to reach left fairway was that the approach would be much harder and over a mound/bunker making the approach from there blind.

There was anther good reason the right fairway offered a much better approach into the green---eg it's higher than the left fairway and you could see the bottom of the pin from the right fairway.

Unfortunately, the green front has risen over the years perhaps three to four or more feet due to sand splash (evolutionary build-up) and even if that right fairway was restored you probably wouldn't be able to see the bottom of the pin today from the right fairway area anyway. When that green was redesigned in 1921 the step from the front bunker onto the green was only about a foot of less. (there's a photo of it in Geo Thomas's Golf Architecture in America).  

There actually is plenty of room up on the old right alternate fairway area before the land breaks down the steep hill to the railroad tracks---eg probably 45 yards of width up there.

Another reason the alternate fairway probably wouldn't work well today is to make it make strategic sense the far end of it would probably need to be extended considerably past the end of the left fairway and if you could see what's up there you'd realize why that would be difficult to impossible to do.

It's interesting to note that even when the old alternate right fairway was in play its far end stopped at the same place the left fairway does (obviously back in that day no one hit a driver as far as they do today).

And lastly, the new back tee on #18 would complicate things if #17 right alternate fairway was to be restored to the way it was originally with the Alison redesign.

#12 is another story entirely with the removal of the trees on the left of the fairway where those old Crump bunkers are which would bring the green into view at least from the original tee. BTW, the back left tee on #12 (built by JA Brown) is now going to be the new regular and back tee. You should see what they've down around that tee----eg it's all open now. I believe they will also remove all the trees on the left of #12 where those old Crump bunkers are.

[Dunlop_White]

TEP,

Great stuff, but are you telling me there originally was an alternative fairway to the right of the bunkering in the 1920's photo that today is deeper in the pines. As you and I have discussed at length, I just wish they would make the commitment to expose more of the bunkering all the way up the right side, possibly even giving you a sight line to the green. Also, look at the skyline green in the distance, much like the other original skyline greens at 2 and 9 at PV, without the tree framework/background that exists today.

This appears to be the model course for tree management. I found literally hundreds of bunkers infested with vegetation 10-20-30 yards deep in the woods. (see below) Why not peel back the edges and re-expose these beauties? Seems to me that the course would improve drastically.

[redanman]

Did someone say #12?






Facing direct to the green


The newest tee on #12 is further left (as well as back) and
cannot allow much of a glimpse of the green without even more
 tree removal.  One particularily talkative caddie recently was
 noting that there "is talk of significantly removing trees on
 #12".

[Dunlop_White]

Great photos! Tell me, why wouldn't they simply peel back the edges free of overgrown trees and vegetation and re-expose golfers to these long lost bunkers? How magnificent would this be? Because the site is so large, PV could still maintain their hole-by-hole framework, which they are so proud of.

[redanman]

Ian was saying on the SFGC thread that scale was the most
difficult aspect of great design to master.  PVGC still has massive
 scale, but would benefit from further opening of several holes.
Since they have in the past few years completely recovered hole #2
I have great hopes for #12.

If PVGC were given back its original scale (to the apoplexic
objections of Tom Paul who would claim that Colt, I mean Crump
never so intended the course to be) it would be almost incomprehensible.
Bethpage Black has incredibly massive scale as well.

[David Ober]

Great photos! Tell me, why wouldn't they simply peel back the edges free of overgrown trees and vegetation and re-expose golfers to these long lost bunkers? How magnificent would this be? Because the site is so large, PV could still maintain their hole-by-hole framework, which they are so proud of.

I have never played Pine Valley, and probably never will, but DAYUM, get rid of some of those trees!!!

[redanman]

The greater Philadelphia area save perhaps Lu Lu
(Thanks Steve!) and Philadelphia CC have been
slow to remove trees in a thoughtful way from
its great courses.  Merion, too.

Lehigh CC, my home course has a loooooong way
to go.  Not only are there loads of conifers, not just
as individual trees, but  even in Die Schwartzwalden,
and great numbers of flowering, shedding,
ratty little bushes that "the members love".

[Mike Hendren]

redanman,

You should be ashamed of yourself.  I happen to know that this photograph is actually the set for the Forest Of No Return scene in the local rep theater's production of Babes In Toyland:



Sing it with me boys:

You will cry, you will shout
Still you can't get out.
This is the forest of no return.

Seriously, it takes a lot of nerve to rake this banker, does it not?

Gotta be Hootie's fault.

Mike

[TEPaul]

Dunlop:

There appears to be little question that there was NOT an alternate fairway on the right in the original Crump design.

The primary reason I say this is Alison's notes leave very little doubt that the alternate fairway was his idea. He did say in his notes 'The length of the green would face the high ground to the right of the present fairway, and the fairway should be extended 35-40 yards towards the right in such a way that the player who has made the big carry over the large bunker should find himself with an open approach up the length of the green'.

I should also say that Colt's original hole drawing as well as his "whole course" drawing shows a 17th  hole that's essentially straight with a single fairway.

There is a drawing of #17 by Crump himself done for a newspaper in 1917. Unfortunately, I've never seen that drawing, although I know it exists. It would certainly prove there was not an alternate fairway on the original hole and I would also very much like to see it because there are very few provable Crump drawings.

But I agree with you that #17 would look a lot better if they took a substantial number of trees off the entire right side of that hole thereby showing the green from the tee. They'd have to start at the tee and go all the way up the right side to just before the new 18th tee to the right of the 17th green. We're probably talking a number that would be in the hundreds.

I've mentioned this before on here but for a time it was a mystery as to why the old right alternate fairway went out of play. GeoffShac and Ben Crenshaw appear to have rediscovered it independently of one another but almost simultaneously. This got me really looking into what happened to it. I talked to Mayor Ott about it and he said Eb Steineger was still alive (he was well into his nineties then) and we could ask him. I asked if I could go interview Steineger in a couple of weeks but he died before I could see him. Mayor Ott did talk to him and I believe asked him about the old alternate fairway on #17.

Apparently Steineger said; "I remember that---we had to let it go because the hose couldn't reach it well enough."  

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

About #17, I can't really speak of the "old right" fairway area other than to say I see virtuall zero chance of that ever coming back simply because of its proximity to the railroad tracks.

Remember, the railroad tracks existed prior to the golf course.
What existed in the way of a golf course ALWAYS had to contend with those tracks.[/color]

What is on the ground right now gives very little reason to attempt to find that small area of fairway in the right corner because the penalty for missing it is at least one shot and the reward (admitting there is a reward) is quite modest. The angle of the green and the contours of the fairway suggest playing to the center / left-center of the fairway. No Patrick, not the left 15 feet that might deal with tree obstructions, 15 - 20 yards right of that.   The middle left pin is the only one that offers a distinct advantage to the player on that small right pad, and for that advantage a risk should be taken, in my opinion.

There's no question that the configuration of the fairway is such that balls are fed to the center.

I wonder if Fazio used this feature, with emphasis, at the new Wynn course in LV ? [/color]

All of this supports my statements that all the tree removal in the world will do one thing at Pine Valley, it will improve the visual presentation to those of us that appreciate the open roomy look and feel of golf courses with such.

It will not offer wider playing corridors and strategic angles to certain hole locations.

We disagree on this and I think the photos bear me out.[/color]

#12 can be a different conversation, or part of this one if you like.

I think Redanman's photos speak volumes and were what I tried to tell you in a previous thread.

Crump never intended to have recovery shots from bunkers impeded by forests, trees, bushes, etc.,etc..

Crump never intended a golfers swing from within a bunker to be impeded by invasive trees and bushes.

Pine Valley should follow NGLA, Shinnecock and Seminoles example with, as Dunlop White says, a tree management program.

JES, don't forget that with tree removal, wind and sunlight enter and benefit the golf course and play.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"Tell me, why wouldn't they simply peel back the edges free of overgrown trees and vegetation and re-expose golfers to these long lost bunkers? How magnificent would this be? Because the site is so large, PV could still maintain their hole-by-hole framework, which they are so proud of."

Dunlop:

PVGC is more than well aware that the logical prescription for a tree removal plan there would be to simply get all the trees out of and out of the sight lines of all Crump's old bunkering. I think they're going to basically do that but they may do it over a rather extended time (maybe 10 years).

And you couldn't be more correct that if they did do precisely that it would not in any way effect the individual hole feeling separated by trees. That golf course is routed remarkably wide with only a few exceptions and it was probably routed that way just for that reason---eg to show all those bunkers and sand as well as segregating the holes from one another and basicaly out of sight of one another with trees.

The only place on the course I can think of where removing trees from some of the old bunkering might create a safety problem is along the left side of #4 near #2 green. There're a couple of old bunkers on the left of #4 that can't be more than about 20-25 yards from the 2nd green but there are others on the left before you get near #2 green and there're a number of others down the hill on the left too.  

On the question of trees and PVGC, though, sure there're lots more of them today than there were back then but one should remember that they are so much taller now than they were back then which makes the course look just that much more treed.

I'm completely convinced that the site that Crump found had trees which were a "second growth" that were probably not more than two decades old. Was that site swept by a massive forest fire within a few decades of when Crump bought it? I think so.

And I should also mention again if anyone missed it but between 1927 and 1931 PVGC planted 3,000-5,000 trees on that course PER YEAR.

Why did they do that? That massive tree planting project between 1927 and 1931 was called "holding the course together" or "stabilizing the course".

The problem perhaps Crump et al had not forseen is how much various areas of that essentially sand based ground shifted and eroded without something to stabilize it.

So, that massive tree planting plan between 1927 and 1931, as well as a significant amount of terracing with vegatation at the same time was done to "hold the course together". Today PVGC probably doesn't have to deal with that problem much but part of the reason may be because they dealt with that problem back between 1927-1931.  

But again, I agree, the perfect prescription for tree management down there would seem to be to just get all the trees out of ALL Mr Crump's bunkers and their sight-lines---and then all that'll ever be necessary would be done.

[TEPaul]

"If PVGC were given back its original scale (to the apoplexic
objections of Tom Paul who would claim that Colt, I mean Crump never so intended the course to be) it would be almost incomprehensible."

redanman;

It is precisely uninformed remarks like that which so often hurt the credibility of this website with some golf clubs. That remark is also a near perfect example of the adage, "a little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing." One of the most important things to do in any restoration of any sort on a golf course is to do enough research on the particulars of the evolution of a golf course and the reasons why it evolved as it did so as not to do something that once again creates a real problem that was solved in a particular way. PVGC surely does need to get all the trees out of all Mr Crump's old bunkering but if they for some odd reason took enough trees out to completely recreate the look of that old photo before 1921 of #17 above it would be total madness. And if you don't know why that would be then you just don't know much about PVGC, or at the very least you don't know enough about it. Fortunately they do know enough about it down there not to attempt to recreate the look of that photo. The treeless look of that photo is a whole lot different from the ideal prescription of taking all the trees out of all Mr Crump's old bunkering.

BTW, I walked it off in the last couple of years and the ideal tree removal plan on #12, in my opinion, would be to remove all the trees a good 35-40 steps (yards) in there from the left side of that fairway. That would get the look of that hole back to what it was NOT before the massive tree planting plan between 1927-1931 that was intended to "stabilize the course" but to the look of the hole IN THE 1950s!! Essentially the same is true of the right side of #17.

I really do feel that PVGC is probably into this type of tree management plan but as with most all things they do, they're obviously going to do it on their own timetable and certianly not on Patrick Mucci's timetable.  

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

While I'd agree that there are select areas that need stabilizing, like the left side of # 18 behind # 9 green, systemically, that argument doesn't hold up.

It's a questionable justification for the global tree problem.

Eliminating trees over ten years is an excuse for NOT doing it.
Over ten years more trees will take root and 99 % of the existing trees will continue to grow, vertically and horizontally.

Since there appears to be no substantive budget problem at PV, there's no excuse for implementing a program over ten years.  This is P.R. and nothing more.

If the club was serious with respect to the issue, they'd immediately address the issues as presented in Redanman's photos and others.

The would recapture bunkers and other features as well as the lines of play, and then address the balance of the problem.

If I'm not mistaken, Seminole is on sandy soil and except for a few Pine and Banyan trees, and maybe one Oak, the internal property is void of trees, yet, somehow, through hurricane Wilma and many more, and the constant winds that buffet the property, the golf course remains "stabilized".

You can look for and accept excuses for inactivity.
One has to wonder, do they understand the issue, or do they like the golf course exactly the way it is.

I suspect the latter.

And, if so, what does that tell you ?

It tells you that Mike Hendren just might be right.

[redanman]

TEP

Never forget your tongue-in-cheek.  Credibility?  I thinnk most
clubs need a better sense of humour about these things if
there is a complete baby-with-the-bathwater approach to
what is posted on here.  Not get too worked up, man.
A little widening of the borders of thought is in order at most
clubs in the range of this forum, few really get it.

You know as well as I do that the wholesale removal of every tree at the valley
would be undesirable and unnecessary (and undoable).  

However,
you would be in total denial if you didn't admit that thinning
the trees to allow circulation of air to improve would not be in the
interest of so-called "maintenance meld" at any course.
Clearing of scrub, grow-in trees and the ever despicable
shedding flowering ornamentals that populate many courses
and course in very high regard.

With the eco-terrorists out there to confront, one must
take a very militant attitude and aim very high, higher than
one truly wants because some group will intervene to keep
you from your intended goal.  Count on it.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Dunlop White, et. al.,

Please understand that TEPaul is the official appologist for select clubs, PV being one of them.

If there's a will, there's a way, and evidently there's neither the will, inclination, nor understanding.

But, it's their club, but that doesn't make them immune from constructive criticism.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul,

Is there any reason you can think of why taking out the trees on 12 out to the ridge line wouldn't be a good idea?  I'm not sure how much further that is exactly from the 35-40 steps you mentioned, but the ridge seems a pretty good demarc point to me.

Thoughts?

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I realize being wrong 98% fo the time covers a ton of ground but I thought I'd point out to you anyway that "apologist" is spelled with one p.

And I also realize you have your project and its timetable for PVGC but I'll remind you they have their own and don't feel the need to solicit your help.

Matter of fact, they do read GOLFCLUBATLAS.com quite a lot and when I was down there a couple of weeks ago, management asked me what I knew about this guy Patrick Mucci.

I told them I know just about everything there is to know about him regarding golf course architecture and I asked them what they wanted to know about you.

Charley and the Boys thought about that for a second and just said;

"Actually we want to know absolutely nothing about him---who wants to know anything about a guy who is such an idiot about this golf course he actually thinks the 'Pimple" should be restored on #18 and 1st green would make a great "skyline"?  

[Mike_Sweeney]

Tom,

Perhaps it is not that complicated. Maybe PV just has to look at The PV Short course.

#14 on PV last week via a friend


Same hole on PV Short last fall

[Mike_Sweeney]

Looking back down 17

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

There's a lot of room in there and the ridgeline along the left of #12 is a ways more. The ridge starts to get closer when you get near the green. But I'm interested in a restoration of the way it was designed by Crump, not more than he designed.

But if you want to hear the Mother of all tree removal on a hole it would be what apparently Crump wanted to do on #13. If you look at the old aerials you can see that the entire ridge and about 50 yards in and below it all along the entire length of that hole had trees removed.

You want to know why? What did you say? Did I hear you say yes? OK, because Crump actually wanted to see the flag on #13 from the tee on #13, and a left tee very near #12 green to boot. Can you imagine what that would look like? It's even a bit hard to imagine that it's possible, isn't it? But for starters #15 way down below is well over 120+ yards away.He also wanted to put in one HUMONGOUS bunker at the far side of Hollman's Hollow.

How about #6? Can you imagine how intimidating that hole would look if you could see the green from the tee and all those bunkers along the top of the ridge on the right? That's the way it looked in Geo Crumps' day. YOWEEE!!

The interesting thing is PVGC as it is today is still one of the most intimidating LOOKING golf courses but can you imagine how much more intimidating looking it would be with all the trees removed from all Old Man Crump's bunkers, as well as those three greens being visible from their tees?

If they ever did something like that my first time out there after that I'd just fire my golf ball right at #6. #12 and #13 greens and just watch it disappear into perdiition.  

BTW, whoever that is in the photo on the tee on the Short Course I sure do hope you caught the ball first.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()