Final Tree Thread - Pine Valley 18

[Mike_Sweeney]

What a finish! Sand, trees, water, width... Even Tom Fazio would love this hole, hitting down to the fairway and back up to a green located over water that does not come into play for most.

This is my last good picture for tree examination, so the question remains:  what trees stay and which should go? My one day reign is over after butchering #4, so what say you?

Tom Paul?

[James Bennett]

Mike

did you see the new back tee, back right?  I expect the view is a little different from back there, with some of the green obscured from view.

James B

[Steve Curry]

From the new tee...




Steve

[Dunlop_White]

I think they should take many of the pines down throughout the right side, re-exposing those bunkers which are currently infested with vegetation.

What would you do on the left? How awkward would it look to thin out the bank on the left side, giving No. 9 some depth behind the green, instead of the current backdrop. Remember it originally had a skyline vista. I think it would help No. 9, I'm not so sure however that it would help No. 18 though, strategically or aesthetically.

Agrinomically? perhaps! Wonder if 18 fairway suffers from shade problems due to the blockage of sun by the height of the left bank coupled with the height of the trees? Does anyone recall it playing softer in this lower area which doesn't get as much air or sun to dry things properly from the left exposure?

[redanman]

Agree with the right side comments.

The left side needs trimming on top of the ridge to allow the left #9 to re-become a skyline.  There is plenty to stabilize the hillside and the east side of the hill is not too bad, really.  The tree in the greenside bunker front left ought to go.

[David Panzarasa]

Mike,
 why do you want to do this with the trees? for visual, or actual golfing or helping the course conditions? Just wondering?

[wsmorrison]

You can't see all of the Flynn bunkers below 18 green from the new back tee.  Cut down those offending trees!  When the course first opened, the entire left side along the hill was bare.  This is not necessarily how it was intended to be kept by Crump.  As Tom Paul has mentioned many times, the tree clearing was temporary and in some cases exploratory during construction.  The intended look afterwards was different in many cases.  They were planting a lot of trees for many years afterwards.  All the trees that are in and around bunkering and sandy waste areas should be removed and a host of others as well.  The good news is that seems to be their plan.  Yet I am convinced the course was not meant to be wide open.  Skyline greens are great and it would be nice to see one on 2 especially, but I need much more familiarity to comment elsewhere.  I hope to be afforded that opportunity over the years as a very grateful guest  

[Patrick_Mucci]

You can't see all of the Flynn bunkers below 18 green from the new back tee.  Cut down those offending trees!  When the course first opened, the entire left side along the hill was bare.  This is not necessarily how it was intended to be kept by Crump.  As Tom Paul has mentioned many times, the tree clearing was temporary and in some cases exploratory during construction.  The intended look afterwards was different in many cases.  They were planting a lot of trees for many years afterwards.  All the trees that are in and around bunkering and sandy waste areas should be removed and a host of others as well.  The good news is that seems to be their plan.  Yet I am convinced the course was not meant to be wide open.  Skyline greens are great and it would be nice to see one on 2 especially, but I need much more familiarity to comment elsewhere.  I hope to be afforded that opportunity over the years as a very grateful guest  

Wayne,

I'd agree with your comments.

To answer Mike Sweeney's question, I think you should view photos taken from the same location, circa 1918-1930, and then make a more refined judgement.

[JESII]

Pat,

Do you think golf courses should ever evolve? Or should they remain in exactly one state forever?

[Paul_Turner]

Edge of hump on the left.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Now I am confused. Is that tee on 18 in Paul's photo the same as the new tee in Steve's photo?

Awesome photos again Paul.

[TEPaul]

"Now I am confused. Is that tee on 18 in Paul's photo the same as the new tee in Steve's photo?"

No. The tee in Steve's photo was built about two years ago. The tee on the old photo is actually the front tee. There's another tee just behind and above it and then the tee in Steve's photo adding about 50 yards to the hole. From the back tee the hole is listed at 483yds. I agree with Dunlop---I'd take a few trees down along the right and expose those bunkers. The far right fairway bunkers are new, by the way.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Do you think golf courses should ever evolve?
Or should they remain in exactly one state forever?

It depends upon what they evolve to.
If the evolutionary process is for the worse, I'd endorse preservation.
If the evolutionary process is for the better, I'd endorse evolution.

Question:
Why did Oakmont, Winged Foot, Shinnecock, Seminole and NGLA get rid of all those trees ?

Answer:
Because those golf courses were evolving for the worse vis a vis unmanaged tree growth.

Why are restorations at clubs like Fox Chapel taking root.
Because the evolutionary process failed and they want to recapture the architectural glory of their golf course.

Tom MacWood had an interesting concept.
Restoring, or preserving a golf course, to it's architectural high water mark.

TEPaul and I agree that in reality it's difficult to ascertain that point, especially retroactively, but, the concept has merit in theory, and in practice in certain situations.

Looking at the old photos, there's no doubt that PV has evolved for the better and in some cases for the worse.  
So why not address the underlying issues where it evolved for the "worse" ?

You seem content to allow a tainting or corrupting of architectural values based on the "time marches on theory"
I'd rather restore and preserve a given hole's architectural high water mark, like skyline greens.
 
If I"m going to help you and TEPaul, I"m going to have to increase my fees.

The demands on my schedule are becoming excessive and I can only alot so much time to my patients, I mean pupils, pupils who have the potential, who have shown a dispositon for learning, and not a blind faith in defending courses near and dear to their hearts.

TEPaul has been showing great progress lately, he's embraced removing trees at PV for reasons of playability, whereas you steadfastly insist that the trees remain, irrespective of their negative impact on play.

I may have to call in Dr Katz for some consulting assistance in your case, hence our fees will increase.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Turner,

These are great photos.

Do those viewing these pictures prefer the front greenside bunker as it was, or as they are today ?

Has that bunker evolved for the better, or worse ?

Note the wrap around nature.

Do you have any other photos of the hump in the green.
I"m rather fond of that feature from a playability point of view.
However, it appears to be in a different location versus the picture from the seed company photo.

Can anyone clarify the apparent discrepancy ?[/color]






Edge of hump on the left.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Do those viewing these pictures prefer the front greenside bunker as it was, or as they are today ?

Has that bunker evolved for the better, or worse ?

Patrick,

I like them both. They each fit for their respective eras of trees and no/few trees. If you put the old bunker in there today with the modern hole, it would look out of place in the trees for some reason.

I like the privacy of the modern PV with trees, they just need to be pulled back as noted many times. In my mind, the perfect balance between trees, course, playability and privacy is nearby Hidden Creek.

It is interesting that the one tree next to the bridge on 18 in both the old and new pictures appears to be roughly the same size. Is it the same tree or a replacement?

[wsmorrison]

"Do those viewing these pictures prefer the front greenside bunker as it was, or as they are today ?

Has that bunker evolved for the better, or worse ?"

Pat,

The sandy face fronting 18, as with 2, may have looked good but it did not function.  The sandy faces often washed away carrying some or a great deal of the greens with them.  The turf and discreet bunkers were put in in order to stabilize the faces of the hills.  Flynn was called in to do this work.  Now that doesn't mean I like the final version better but I do like how it looks and it passes the test of time--it holds up.   So I would have to say that they didn't really evolve, but were remodeled for the better.

[Paul_Turner]

Patrick

I'd like to see those great traps on 2nd and 18th back to how they originally had them.  And I think they could do it with this new bunkerwol stuff.

That original  tee view on the 18th.  Was probably the most spectacular on the course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Looking at the picture from behind the 18th tee, it's hard to believe that the trees to the right of the railroad tracks could be seen from the middle of the 9th fairway.

Are you sure you weren't seeing the trees immediately to the right of the 18th hole ?

[Sean Leary]

Is there a faction of the club that doesn't want any more tree removal? Since I am assuming cost isn't an issue, I am just wondering why MORE tree removal hasn't taken place, particularly in places where bunkers are in the trees?

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Looking at the picture from behind the 18th tee, it's hard to believe that the trees to the right of the railroad tracks could be seen from the middle of the 9th fairway.
Are you sure you weren't seeing the trees immediately to the right of the 18th hole?"

Patrick:

I'm sure because I saw them. If you want to see why just check out on the old photo of #18 how high that ground is on the other side of the RR.  
 
 

[TEPaul]

"I"m rather fond of that feature from a playability point of view.
However, it appears to be in a different location versus the picture from the seed company photo.
Can anyone clarify the apparent discrepancy?"

Patrick:

I'm getting a bit tired of your overbearing opinions while all the time having to answer your questions about PVGC. If you're going to be so opinionated don't you think you should first be more aware of the details of the course and its evolution?

That remarkable hump on the 18th green was called Quasimodo originally, but after it was removed (around 1927) it became known as the Marty Feldman Hunchback Hump because in various old photographs the hump clearly was in different places in various old photographs.

In the late 1950s some old photos were found that showed the feature as much shrunken but still as radical and at that point it took on an acne connotation for some reason and became known as "The Pimple".

As I've explained to you a number of times Crump planned to remove that feature and install in its place this really big and really long roll of a feature that was to be called......

Oh, never mind.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'm getting a bit tired of your overbearing opinions while all the time having to answer your questions about PVGC. If you're going to be so opinionated don't you think you should first be more aware of the details of the course and its evolution?

I'll bet you didn't know that the "hump" was moved about until recently.   Probably when I pointed out the disparity in the photos.  Funny how you never mentioned it before.[/color]

That remarkable hump on the 18th green was called Quasimodo originally, but after it was removed (around 1927) it became known as the Marty Feldman Hunchback Hump because in various old photographs the hump clearly was in different places in various old photographs.

Seeing as how "Young Frankenstein" didn't debut until 1974 it appears that you're about 47 years off on your time line.

But, accuracy in presenting the facts has never been your forte  

If what you say is true, and I believe that the photos and your research confirm that the "hump" was moved within the green several times, that's very interesting.

It would seem to indicate that the club was intent on retaining Crump's feature, while trying to find the ideal location for that feature, rather then abandoning it.

It would be interesting to see if there are any archival records, at Board meetings, Superintendents notes, etc., etc., that discuss the issue of the hump and its location.

I suspect, because, either Crump and/or his close associates committed pen to paper and wrote that the 18th green was large and bland and needed a feature to distinquish it, that the club continued to explore the incorporation of the feature within the green.

The concept had merit in 1918 and it has merit today.

A hump, mound, ridge or roll would enhance the green and the playability of the hole tremendously.

It is a feature worthy of consideration for restoration.

It's clear, Crump and/or his close associates agreed that the green needed a substantive internal feature to provide character and playing challenges.

Why wouldn't you want to honor Crump's design, construction and written wishes ?[/color]  

In the late 1950s some old photos were found that showed the feature as much shrunken but still as radical and at that point it took on an acne connotation for some reason and became known as "The Pimple".

As I've explained to you a number of times Crump planned to remove that feature and install in its place this really big and really long roll of a feature that was to be called......

Oh, never mind.

It doesn't matter what it would be called, and in the absolute, the final configuration doesn't need to be perfect.

What is clear is that Crump and/or his close associates wrote that the green was large and bland and needed a substantive internal feature to provide character and playing challenges, which are absent from today's green.

Remember too, the famous words of the noted Italian baker, Guiseppe Entementonio, who owned Pepperoni Farms, who said,
"A half a loaf is better then none"

The current green lacks what Crump and/or his close associates knew it needed, and PV would be wise to fulfill Crump's wishes and intent.

There are those that will use the excuse that the ideal feature or location can't be determined, however, it's quite clear that almost any feature would be an improvement over the current green[/color]

[TEPaul]

"If what you say is true, and I believe that the photos and your research confirm that the "hump" was moved within the green several times, that's very interesting."

Patrick;

Please tell me you kidding, right?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Turner,

Could you post your picture beneath the picture in the seed company's brochure.

Thanks

[Paul_Turner]

Patrick

I don't have the seed company pic.