Exactly who is it suggesting that because the course was designed for top players, it automatically implies that higher handicappers are not to trod on its fairways?
What was Crump's quote which Tom posted? I believe it was along the lines of..."A 1915 story affords some insight into Crump's mindset....A prominent Philadelphia businessman with whom Crump was playing plugged his ball high in the face of one of the deepest bunkers. Short and stout he struggled laboriously to the top of the hazard and called down, "George, why in the name of common sense did you build these bunkers so high? If I fall off here, I'll break my neck." Replied Crump, "Now you've got it. We build them so high that all the dub golfers would all break their necks. This is a course for champions, and they never get in trouble.".
"What difference does it make. Wide is wide, and the fairways at PV are WIDE. WIDE fairways INHERENTLY accomodate higher handicap players." Pat, this was quoted from you just above. Are you serious? Does the nature of the fairway mean anything? Does it matter what it takes to get to the fairway? Every single hole at Pine Valley demands a minimum 100 yard carry to reach the fairway (and those interim areas are not overly forgiving, as you know), does that say HIGH HANDICAP ACCOMODATION to you? Does it matter what happens when you miss the fairway? Perhaps your usage of the word accomodate differs from mine. In this context I would use to give consideration to as my definition. What about the design of Pine Valley seems to give consideration to higher handicappers?
Your next point addressed the irrigation issue. I'll assume you are joking there and simply forgot the smiley face, but just in case.
YES, you're wrong.
Fairway width can be dependent upon the irrigation system, but, all irrigation systems aren't created equally.
There's single line, dual line, triple line, head spacing, throw radius, wind, terrain, etc., etc.. All combine to determine the area under irrigation.
Money is usually a factor with respect to choosing a system.
I don't think money was a problem at PV. [/color]
Again, your words. I wonder why Crump did not select the throw radius model when he built the course. Any suggestions?
As to the playability of the holes referrenced for the bogey player, you have accused me of couching all of my positions from the scratch players perspective when, in fact, not once have I done so. You on the other hand list in virtually every one of those holes that the play will be to lay up and then pitch on. Fine, great, the trouble is when you suggest that when he misses somewhere he can simply recover just like anyone else. How many 18 handicappers can recover like you? How many 18 handicappers will ever recover from most of the hazards down there? The point being 18 handicappers are not reliable enough to hit a drive over the initial hazard and in between to lateral hazards on each tee shot, then negotiate a lay-up (or attempt at the green) with the same consequences often enough to suggest that this course accomodates them. The recovery options are just not there for that level of player.
This is not at all to say that higher handicappers should not play there. That may be where you've fallen off the tracks. You should just not suggest the course was designed to accomodate them because they play (and always have played) there or because there is a picture somewhere of a woman on the course.