[JESII]

Pat,

Are you suggesting that hazards on the outside of 50 - 60 yard wide fairways should be considered when discussing strategic playing angles?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I'd be interested in what Crump designed, as well.  From aerials I've seen, it's tough to tell it that's out as far as the ridge line on 12, which is partly why I asked the question.  

That is really wild info about 13.  I had been aware that 6 used to be like that but I think he would have had to set a forest fire to achieve what he envisioned on 13.  

I'm also glad you mentioned earlier about the top right tee on 12 being the original tee.  I know in previous discussions with Sully he's made the point that no one would try to drive the green from the back left tee but now I have confirmation that the back left tee was a J.A.B. tee that wasn't part of Crump's original design.

There is no question that people would be tempted to drive the green on 12 from the top right (Crump) tee, especially if they could see the green, as Crump evidently originally intended.

[JESII]

Mike,

If you remember one of my last posts in that prior thread stated that I would have tried to drive the green if I could see it. I could only see the very edge of it and so I hit 3-wood out to the right a bit. I conceeded that point, but at the same time I said I don't think the green would be in view from the back left tee at all and so tree removal would be purely an aesthetic improvement (albeit, a significant one).

Would #12 be a better hole for all players if the front right tee were the only one used?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

If you remember one of my last posts in that prior thread stated that I would have tried to drive the green if I could see it. I could only see the very edge of it and so I hit 3-wood out to the right a bit. I conceeded that point, but at the same time I said I don't think the green would be in view from the back left tee at all and so tree removal would be purely an aesthetic improvement (albeit, a significant one).

Would #12 be a better hole for all players if the front right tee were the only one used?

Yep, I recall you saying that and I agree that the back left tee makes the hole one dimensional, trees or no trees.  I can't imagine anyone in their right mind taking a rip at the green from there.

Step up to the right hand tee however, and even though it's dodgy and fraught with danger, I think more than a few would go for it, particularly once all those trees come down and you see the green beckoning and taunting.

So yes, I do think it's a better hole for everyone from the front, right tee.  

[Sean Leary]

These pictures make the trees look much more invasive than they really are....On most holes, the trees aren't really in play unless you hit a huge foul ball....

[JESII]

I think you're right in general Sean, but the question I seem to be debating with Mike Cirba, Pat Mucci and perhaps some others is this....If a player hit his tee shot into one of these bunkers that are now obstructed by trees should he rightfully be entitled to a clear shot at the green. They have stated that clearing the trees that have grown in since Crump died will allow for playing angles and options that do not exist today. I think clearing the trees to the outer edge of the bunker complexes will enhance the visual presentation (and I do agree Pat, that it will also improve turf health) but have little to do with offering improved playing angles into the greens. The bunkers were not intended to afford improved approach angles so why should something be done today under that premise?    Where do you stand on that issue?

[Ryan Farrow]

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

Wouldnt you be furious if your ball got a bad lie in a hidden bunker.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Sully,

I think I'd add that I didn't like facing a tree from a bunker at Running Deer, nor did I like it at Hidden Creek, so I can't let PV off the hook so easily there either.

I think there is more to it in terms of strategy than having a backswing and unimpeded shot (other than the bunker).  Today, many top players intentionally hope to miss in bunkers.  I don't think it's infeasible in the least to think that someone would factor recoverability into their strategic equation, particularly into certain hole locations (a far right hole location on #12 where a player might consider missing into a bunker on the left side to be favorable to other alternatives), yet today with those bunkers covered by forests there is no option, and thus, no thinking nor temptation whatsoever.

[JESII]

Michael,

Come back, come back you just went overboard.

These bunkers pictured on #12 would never be considered viable recovery places for a good player to consider as "the place to miss it". They are well away from the actual green, so the good player that actually has a go at the green would have to miss it by 40 yards short and left to find any of those obstructed bunkers. Needless to say, the less-than-good player would not aim for a bunker on the inside of a very short dogleg hole which leaves a very difficult and awkward shot to the green. Even if that area were fairway or short rough it would not be a great place to be.

Let's get back to whether or not the tree clearing can have an actual psychological effect on a player to induce certain shots. #'s 6, 12 and 13 and possibly 17 are great examples of what might happen. This is the avenue you might be able to get me on so let's explore it.

Beyond the first time experience Tom Paul talks about is anyone actually going to aim at the green on 6 or 17? Does the allure of the 13th green way out across that great ridgeline actually draw tee shots in that direction? You tell me, and why if you don't mind. I appreciate the psychological challenges of GCA as much, or more, than the physical but why would I intentionally aim at the 17th green when I flat out know I cannot reach it in million years? And if I did try to reach it and end up with a pretty reasonable 40 yard bunker shot is that so much worse (read: more difficult) than the semi-blind wedge from down in the fairway?

[Sean Leary]

I think you're right in general Sean, but the question I seem to be debating with Mike Cirba, Pat Mucci and perhaps some others is this....If a player hit his tee shot into one of these bunkers that are now obstructed by trees should he rightfully be entitled to a clear shot at the green. They have stated that clearing the trees that have grown in since Crump died will allow for playing angles and options that do not exist today. I think clearing the trees to the outer edge of the bunker complexes will enhance the visual presentation (and I do agree Pat, that it will also improve turf health) but have little to do with offering improved playing angles into the greens. The bunkers were not intended to afford improved approach angles so why should something be done today under that premise?    Where do you stand on that issue?

What I found while playing there (which was only twice) is if I was in a fairway bunker I often didn't have much of a play to the green anyway, particularly on holes like number 2.  ........I was in a few, unfortunately

[JESII]

That's part of my point Sean, the bunkers were not designed to let you get out of jail free. They were designed to be extremely penal in some instances and terrace steps in others.

[TEPaul]

"That is really wild info about 13.  I had been aware that 6 used to be like that but I think he would have had to set a forest fire to achieve what he envisioned on 13."

MikeC:

No, no, no, he wasn't envisioning taking the trees down I described on the left of #13, I'm telling you he DID take them all down. Any old overhead aerial of #13 shows that.

When researching and reading through all this stuff on PV it really is important to keep applying a very comprehensive timeline of events when looking for the real meaning on all kinds of things.

The reason I know he wanted to see the flag on #13 from the tee is because W.P. Smith (one of his two best friends down there who wrote what I call "The Remembrances" with Father Simon Carr) said so in his remembrance of Crump's thoughts on #12.

Smith wrote;

"But he did decide that 13th tee should be connected to the 12th green by gradual slope and should be raised considerably to see flag on the 13th green while driving."

Ordinarily, one might think that Crump intended to take all those trees down on the left of #13 so he could see the flag on #13 green from #13 tee. But anyone can see on those old aerials he'd already done that. What he never did do, however, which some might forget when reading this stuff is see the flag on #13 or the tee on #13 because neither were built or finished when he died.

We have to always remember Crump only saw 14 holes in play on that golf course. He never saw 12-15 in play.

But all you have to do is take a ruler and lay it from the back of #12 green (where he wanted the raised 13th tee) to the middle of the 13th green and you can see that sight-line is clear of trees.    

[JESII]

Tom,

Wouldn't this seem like one of the places trees would have been planted to "hold the course together"? Left of #13 that is.

[TEPaul]

"Would #12 be a better hole for all players if the front right tee were the only one used?"

Sully:

In my opinion, no, not at all. The JA Brown tee on #12 works very well and it's an incredibly cool look back there now that they've taken all the trees down from around that back tee.

There is one caveat about tree removal down there around some tees though, and #12 back is perhaps one of the best examples. They do not, I repeat, they DO NOT want to take many trees out from behind that JA Brown tee or from #11 or anywhere close to the back of that tee you're gonna see something that looks like the back of an aircraft carrier!!!  

[JESII]

Tom,

Do you agree with my assertion that regardless of tree removal along that left side of #12 the green is not visible because of the terrain. I took a pretty good look at it about a month ago and that's what I thought.

[Mike_Sweeney]

That's part of my point Sean, the bunkers were not designed to let you get out of jail free. They were designed to be extremely penal in some instances and terrace steps in others.

Sully,

Okay here I disagree with you. See below my circle where I put my tee ball, and they the shot to a pin in the back of the green. That is a long shot from the tee, I was not that wide, and that tree in picture 2 prevented any chance of hitting anything but a very low bunker shot.

As many have stated including yourself, tree removal is manly for asthetics at PV, because it is much wider than it looks in pics. However a little pruning would not hurt.



See ball in the bunker

[JESII]

Mike,

My point is that Pine Valley was not built with the intention of letting you hit whatever type of bunker shot you want when you are in one. My opinion is that that tree in your way there should go because width is very attractive to me, not because you had to hit a low bunker shot out of there.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Wouldn't this seem like one of the places trees would have been planted to "hold the course together"? Left of #13 that is."

Sully:

That's certainly possible but it would be pretty hard for me to say except by comparison to some other areas that became real problems that way. Obviously if you leave some real slopes bare on a sandy site like that one things are bound to erode and slide.

Perhaps one of the worst areas for that was along the ridge on #6 and just off the tee. That entire enormous sloping waste area that starts just off the tee on #6 and goes all the way to the end of the carry on the right is not exactly the way that hole once looked. A lot of that just eroded and slid and the way they fixed that was massive amounts of "terracing" that was "vegetated" so the roots could lend support.

Next time you walk off the 6th tee and along the left of that massive hazard take special notice of all the "terracing throughout it particularly on the left side all the way along. That was part of the plan to "hold the course together".  

So, my overall point with tree removal and PVGC is that if they get the trees out of Mr Crump's old bunkers they will be just fine with a stable golf course but if they were foolish enough to ever listen to some "know-it-all" like Pat Mucci or redanman who don't know enough about the history and evolution of PVGC and who recommend returning that course to the treeless site it was in the teens or before 1927 they could very well be asking for more trouble than they realize.

In other words they could be inheriting once again an old erosion problem that was fixed years ago with some substantial tree planting (3,000-5,000 PER YEAR and substanital "terracing" and "vegetating" between 1927 and 1931)

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Do you agree with my assertion that regardless of tree removal along that left side of #12 the green is not visible because of the terrain. I took a pretty good look at it about a month ago and that's what I thought."

Sully:

From the original tee you wouldn't be able to see much if any of the green surface of #12 because that entire side (left side as you stand in front of and face the green) is built up. But I'm pretty sure you could see the flag on perhaps 1/2 or more of the green (depending on how deep you want to go in on the left side and remove trees).

I don't think it's all that necessary that a green surface be visible to tempt a long player into going right at it. Being able to see the flag or just being able to see exactly where the green is would be enough.

BTW, the left side of that green was of special interest to Crump and he took pains to build it up and out near the front of the green because he did not want players who hit the ball weak and down the left side of the fairway to be able to hold the green well on their approach with a niblick from that area. Crump apparently wanted to semi-force golfers to take driver and drive the ball way down the fairway so their approach would be right into the gut and length of the green. He also insisted that green run-away so there would be all kinds of approach options when looking down the length of that green.

But if someone wanted to wuss-out and go down the left side he wanted to penalize their approach. One thing George Crump really loved was the driver. His was famous---it was called "Bolivar".

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Pat,

Are you suggesting that hazards on the outside of 50 - 60 yard wide fairways should be considered when discussing strategic playing angles?

Why else did Crump design and build them ?

For folly ?

To run his costs up ?

Or, to be meaningful features meant to interface with the golfer ?[/color]

[TEPaul]

Why else did Crump design and build them ?
For folly ?
To run his costs up ?
Or, to be meaningful features meant to interface with the golfer?"

Sully:

Would it be safe to say that Pat completely missed your point?  

On another matter, Sully, the thinking architecturally or philosophically in an architectural context with being able to see greens like #6, #12 and #13 from the tee is not so golfers will be tempted to drive a ball right at those greens but because being able to see your ultimate goal from the tee which is not on your logical line of play is fairly distracting to your concentration when you know you have to drive the ball in the direction of the fairway.

This is some offshoot of the whole philosophy of somewhat undefined width with good players which GeoffShac has always been able to articulate so well. Good players are much more comfortable getting the ball into areas that are highly defined---like narrow tree-lined fairways or greens than they are when they have to search a broad expanse of architecture to determine what the best direction to take is. You should have heard Faldo on that point on #10 the first time he played Merion.

[David Panzarasa]

I am certainly going to be in the minority here on my points.  
 I played Pine Valley for the first time last week. I really cant recall a better experience ever in my life. One thing that I always heard and got stuck in my head was that there was no room for error on this course. Hearing this and having this absorbed into my head, i was stunned and shocked how huge the fairways were. Actually, I cant recall a course that I have played that had wider fairways then PV. This being said, I am beyond against any trees being removed. I am also one that believes that trees make the course and courses in general more appealing (my own opinion). If you miss a fairway on this course, you seriously need to be punished, and not with simple bunker shots that you have direct access and angles at the green. I am utterly against that. If there is a tree in your way, to bad. For you to be off the fairway is a major mistake, so you should have problems getting a good shot.....
 Mike's picture of his ball in the bunker with the tree overhanging is not a fair shot. I agree with that, but for some reason, if there was no bunker there I would venture a great deal of people on here would still say that the tree is in the wrong spot. While a nice litte bump and run or chip would not only be an option but show some shot making.
 As for the par three 12th i believe people are talking about...my thoughts on a par three is that there should not be options, or different choices. It is a par 3, you are not looking for a bail out nor going to try and hit a bail out. You are aiming for the green. the only option i see on a par 3 is where on the green do you want to hit it, and most times that is below the whole. 12th whole to me was great! My tee shot landed short on the fringe and not seeing or knowing how drastic the hill was i 4 putted from 15 feet away. that was great to me. (not to my scorecard). if you miss right and off the green and are in trees, then what is the problem? the hole is in front of you and you see the big tree on the left and the big one on the right, obviously dont hit it there. and your not aiming for the bunkers either. if you hit it short you have a shot at the green, not a great one but it is there. why must these holes all have direct shots no matter where you land your shot? That is where I am very confused here? your not suppose to hit it off the green on a par 3, yet people on hear think there should be some safety or options off the green? kind of goes back to the talk of the par 3 17th at TPC. the par three is in front of you, your always ALWAYS going to aim at the green. if your miss the green, let the trouble begin because you were not meant to be off it.
 I know i am rambling.....like usual.....but just seems people want easy shots/direct shots after a bad shot.
 I missed a couple of fairways playing that day, and had my ball in some utter hell in the trees.I deserved it, i missed that HUGE fairway.
 Just wondering if people here have a problem with the devils asshole? I would think that going into that trap would be 10x worse then going into trees that block a direct shot with a full swing.  

[redanman]

These bunkers pictured on #12 would never be considered viable recovery places for a good player to consider as "the place to miss it". They are well away from the actual green, so the good player that actually has a go at the green would have to miss it by 40 yards short and left to find any of those obstructed bunkers. Needless to say, the less-than-good player would not aim for a bunker on the inside of a very short dogleg hole which leaves a very difficult and awkward shot to the green. Even if that area were fairway or short rough it would not be a great place to be.

I'll leave this paragraph whole to comment on it.

The player hitting these bunkers is NOT landing 40 yards left he is landing on line for a daring shot to the green that he has mis-hit, or has slightly drawn the ball - a common miss for the better player.  

Who is good at a 30-65 yard bunker shot to a green sloping to the left away from you?  Not many if any, so I must agree with my good friend and accused lapdog M Cirba that allowing full view of the green from the right tee (the only real tee from which to play PVGC #12) is just brilliant.

To David P:

It is indeed one of the joys of this world to set foot on and play PVGC.  However, the wide fairways do not make the course easy. I can say with absolute certainty that you found the greens very very tame last week.  That said, the DA was not  really in play even for a front right pin this past week.  It was on the back knob on Saturday (an absolutely thrilling position) and over was certainly in play.

[David Panzarasa]

redanman,
 Never once have I said the course was easy, it killed me! and that is why I like the course. Because the huge fairways are their for the taking....and if you miss you get beat up. I even said that I four putted from 15 feet away after a very nice tee shot on 12. And even if you are on the fairway, part two of the battle begins. I am just saying my thoughts on the trees and the par three's. Oh that course was hard!!

[redanman]

David

It was also more of a general comment, not really only directed at your specific comments, please don't be offended.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()