[AndrewB]

I'm reading Pine Valley Golf Club, A Unique Haven of the Game, and among many of the interesting things I've read so far, this one stands out.  It describes Crump's thoughts on the 15th hole immediately prior to his death, as told by Reverend Simon Carr (the club's first secretary and a very close friend of Crump's).

George never decided what to do with this hole.  He wanted some kind of a three-shot hole, but could not give it a special character and feature and he admitted the the only way to build a genuine three-shotter like No. 7 was to make the shots so dependent on each other that without three perfect shots you could not play the hole properly and he did not wish to repeat No. 7....It was the last thing on which I talked with him before he died, and he had not decided what to do with it.

The way I read this quote, it implies that Crump was not quite content with the layout of the 15th and that perhaps he didn't feel it lived up to his standard of "mak[ing] the shots so dependent on each other that without three perfect shots you could not play the hole properly".

The book also states that the 15th tee was originally supposed to be further south such that it sat at a different angle to the lake, creating what he called a "bite as much as you wanted" drive.  The change to the current location (pre-construction) was prompted by Crump's finding of the new green site for 13, turning it into a dogleg, and making the 14th a par three with the 15th tee located nearby.  Crump died before the 12th-15th holes were built, but their design is what he layed out.

Do you agree with my interpretation of that quote?  Do you think the originally intended use of the lake was Crump's "special character and feature" for this hole, that it was lost in the redesign of 13, and that perhaps Crump was still looking for ways to improve the 15th?

If Crump had lived to see these holes constructed and played, do you think he would have left them as they were or modified them, based on this quote?  Is there any evidence of Crump making significant modifications after a hole's construction was finished on the 14 holes he did see completed?

How do you think the hole would play from the tee described for the original layout (unfortunately I don't have more information on this, but maybe others do)?  Would it be closer to Crump's standard of having the three shots depend on each other?  Does the current 15th live up to that standard?

Lots of questions, most of which likely don't have answers, but I'd like to hear any thoughts you guys have anyhow.

[Dean Paolucci]

Andrew - If the tee was positioned to the right of the current 15th tee (which would be on the other side of the 14th green) to achieve the desired "bite" the walk back around the lake could be sizable.  Traveling right is impossible so the left walk could be very time consuming.  Typically the walks from tee to fairway are very manageable.  By the way, the hole does have sequential shot value as is.  A tee shot to the left is in the trees and a shot to the right from the rough creates a need to shape the ball to prevent it from becoming penalized by a narrowing fairway opening with trees / underbrush left and a sever fall off right.  The current LZ is crowned and an errant shot is penalized as above.  A tee could be move left but, the resulting dogleg left would be challenging however the carry across the lake would be minimized.  The new LZ would create the very difficult and longer shaped shot described above.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andrew,

TEPaul is very familiar with the "staging" that took place at PV.

If the caretakers at Happydale Farms will let him out of his room for an hour or two to use a computer, I'm sure he can supply you with the chronology of events with respect to that portion of the golf course.

[JSlonis]

Andrew,

You've brought up some interesting points regarding Pine Valley's 15th.  I think that in its present configuration that the hole lives up to the standard that Crump set forth for the course.  At least for me, each shot is highly dependant upon the previous.  You can't get away with a mediocre or poor shot and have a realistic chance of making par.  It's one of the most difficult, if not THE most difficult par 5 I've ever played.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JSlonis,

# 15 is similar to an eel trap.

The further you proceed down the hole, the more restrictive it becomes.

I think there's some latitude on the drive, but, after that it starts getting very dicey.

And, reaching the green doesn't guarantee a two putt, or a three putt.

I've always objected to the row of fir trees, to the right and short of the green.

I'd be curious to know who planted them there and why ?

[JSlonis]

Pat,

I agree.  The most latitude you have on the hole for a missed shot is on the tee shot and it gets progressively more difficult from there.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

JSlonis,

I think that's an interesting concept, "progressive difficulty"

I wonder what other holes employ that strategy, especially par 5's ?

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

The 15th at Cape Kidnappers has been both praised and villified for its daunting difficulty.  On that hole, the progressive difficulty works the opposite way -- the fairway is about the same width for the last 350 yards, but because you are risking death to either side, it takes progressively more guts for every ten yards further you try to hit your second shot.  

[Michael Dugger]

The par 5 fourth hole at Pumpkin Ghost narrows considerably as one approaches the green.  OB right, wetlands left.  An approach hit slightly askew can spell disaster.

But it's a short three shot hole, thus not comparable to PV15.

[TEPaul]

Andrew:

To even begin to understand that quote from Simon Carr as to what Crump's feeling was about the 15th (just before he died) involves a ton of factors going all the way back to how the course was routed and then designed and built (it was an unusual process, to say the least).

In many ways his dilemma probably showed how much of an amateur in design Crump was when he began the project in 1912 and early 1913.

He became very particular about what kind of holes he wanted and particularly where and in a real sense he constructed his way into the proverbial box (right into a corner--eg 12-15) by finishing the other fourteen holes before settling on exactly what to do with the final four (12-15).

In the back of Crump's mind part of the problem may've been that he always considered #16 as a potential par 5 but he had settled on the 14th hole and he had to get from there to the 16th tee (which was built and in play).

It is also very hard to know exactly what state #12-#15 where in when Crump died. I think they may've been basically "rough shaped" but that was about all when he died in late Jan. 1918.

As to what he meant by three shots 'depending on each other', Jamie Slonis' post is probably correct. Back in that day he envisioned even a very good player having to hit probably his LONGEST and best three shots just to reach the green on that hole. This was an extreme example of what is often referred to as "shot testing", something that Crump was really into with his design at PVGC.

We also need to remember that Crump wanted only two par 5s on that course and that both of them were supposed to be completely unreachable in two shots----period! That was most certainly true of #7 that was built and in play and I guess he was just trying to figure out how to do the very same thing (totally unreachable in two shots and even unreachable in THREE shots if the good golfer even slightly missed any of this first three shots distance-wise) AND still make #15 different enough from #7.

[AndrewB]

Folks, sorry to start this thread and then disappear (busy, busy lately).  Thanks for all your input.  I didn't mean to imply that I thought the 15th didn't live up to that standard, I was just questioning whether Crump did at the time of his death based on that quote (and reserving my own opinion until after discussions with those of you who are more familiar with the course).  There seems to be consensus that 15 does in fact live up to that standard, and that it does so through requiring three accurate (more strictly on each shot) and solidly struck shots in order to reach the green.  Perhaps, then, it is the progressive narrowing of the fairway that is the 15th's "special character or feature" that Crump was after.

In many ways his dilemma probably showed how much of an amateur in design Crump was when he began the project in 1912 and early 1913.

He became very particular about what kind of holes he wanted and particularly where and in a real sense he constructed his way into the proverbial box (right into a corner--eg 12-15) by finishing the other fourteen holes before settling on exactly what to do with the final four (12-15).

In the back of Crump's mind part of the problem may've been that he always considered #16 as a potential par 5 but he had settled on the 14th hole and he had to get from there to the 16th tee (which was built and in play).

Interesting.  My understanding was that Crump did have a design for those last four holes before the others were built, but that his decision to change 13 into a dogleg led to making modifications to the surrounding holes left to be built (12, 14, and 15).  Is that not so?  Or, was it just that he modified 13, then settled on the resulting change to 14 before considering how to handle 15?

I suppose the fact that the rest of the course was already completed prevented him from making other changes outside of this "corner", though it's not clear to me that he would have (or even that he could have done better than the 12-15 that exist today .. I was just posing the question of how things might have been different had he lived given that he didn't sound settled on the current 15).

[TEPaul]

".. I was just posing the question of how things might have been different had he lived given that he didn't sound settled on the current 15)."

Andrew:

It's a long story with all kinds of twists and turns over the 5-6 years Crump was involved in PVGC.

First of all, for the first few years no one had even considered going within 200-250 yards of what is now #14 and the 15th tee. The probable reason was that area originally looked like quite an unkempt quagmire. I can't prove it but I have a feeling Crump dropped a considerable amount of his own money when he got into sort of formalizing that lake down there in concert with the waterworks that was installed on that course around that lake.

The reason #13's alteration changed things was because that cut out the 14th being a par 4 which was initially sort of planned by Crump.

Once #14 sort of had to become a par 3 because of the alteration of the 13th green about 125 yards to the left you should see what some of the iterations for #14 were. One of them was perhaps one of the coolest looking cape holes I've ever seen that was something between a long par 3 and a short perhaps very high risk driveable par 4. It looked like something of a downhill mirror image of the original cape hole at NGLA. That iteration of the 14th hole would put its green right on the land that's the beginning of the 15th fairway.

If that was done that would've put the tee for #15 on the other side of the pond somewhat down the fairway on the present 15th. This probably would've made #15 a long par 4 which was something Hugh Alison recommended it be turned into in 1921.

That then would have left #16 to be the second par 5 on the course and that's precisely what it was in Crump's initial routing before Colt ever arrived. Crump's original 16th hole had a tee to the right of the present 11th green and the green site for #16 was about where it is now making it over 560 yards long. Incidentally Crump's initial 15th hole ran from about the middle of the present 15th fairway to the present 1th green.

Crump's friends maintained that to the day he died Crump was considering moving the 16th green much farther out and somewhere out on that peninsula behind present #14 green, thereby turning it into a par 5 again. That would also explain why Crump's original 17th hole was longer than it is today.

Things of this nature where probably still rolling around in his mind when he last spoke to Father Carr who later made that quote above.

There is another thing you should know about Crump when it came to PVGC and his plans to work on it and perfect it. He was asked occassionally when he planned to finally finish the course and his famous answer apparently was a resounding "NEVER!"

On the other hand, he was asked in a newspaper interview within six months of his death what he did planned to do when he finished PVGC and he stated he was going to build another golf course right next to it JUST FOR WOMEN. And that was exactly why he purchased that additional 400 acres that is PVGC within a year of his death. Apparently he had already spoken to such as Alexa Stirling about some of the things it should be.  

[archie_struthers]

 


Great stuff, guys.

I can only imagine what TEP talks abot for 15 & 16 flipflopped as par 4 and 5. What a cool second shot that would leave on 16 but maybe Crump in his wisdom thought that a downhill par 5, which 16 would have to be, might not be impregnable in two shots.  

Certainly after over a thousand trips around Pine Valley and having seen what technology I'm still kind of awestruck that anyone can reach #15 without the benefit of steroids (hmnnnn?)  Crump, as fertile as his mind was, couldn't have seen someone reaching 15, given the technology of his time.

As to the three shot requirements of the par fives, it remains a wonder to me that no one has reached seven yet!  I know the second shot has to be longer but I saw more than a few players knock it close to the green in my days there, and even took a swing at it myself one day.  Holding the green, of course, would appear to be the tougher part of the equation for the long hitter.  As a corollary to this , #12 is now well within the reach of many players, from either tee. Why no one on #7.  I would guess that within the next two years someone will do it!

Once again, great stuff, what a cape hole 15 would have been!!!!

 

[JESII]

Archie,

Do you think any iteration along the lines of moving 15 and 16 could possibly improve on what is there right now?


Re: #7, count on Matt Raudenbush to be the one to do it. Charlie told me he hit a shot, after a chip out, into the back bunker earlier this year. The swing and ball speed numbers Matt has are apparently off the charts.

[TEPaul]

Archie:

I've never heard of anyone hitting a second shot onto #7 but Davis Sezna swears that Art Selinger (the long driving champion) hit a second shot over #7 green but that was before they added about 40 more yards to it. So I guess it isn't so much unreachable in two as it is unhittable in two.  

[TEPaul]

"The swing and ball speed numbers Matt has are apparently off the charts."

Sully:

Not as far off the charts as Nebraska's young "Long John" Hurley. Still today the USGA's on-course computer equipment has not caught a swing and ball speed that high. When his numbers came up the tech guys at first thought maybe the tech equipment had malfunctioned. When he walked back to check his numbers the tech guy blurted out; "Young man, HOW far do you hit the ball?" And with a big white milk and corn fed grin on his face he said: "Well, sir, I guess I hit it very very VERY FAR".

(If that wasn't all stunning enough as we walked down the fairway he said to me: "You know I pretty much flat missed that drive".)

Pretty scary stuff, but not as scary as when he drove it to the just about the front of the green on PCC's #8.

[JESII]

OK Tommy, I'll bet you anything you want that young Mr. Raudenbush hits it on that green in two before "Nebraska's young "Long John" Hurley".

[TEPaul]

"Do you think any iteration along the lines of moving 15 and 16 could possibly improve on what is there right now?"

Archie and Sully:

I know it's hard to imagine improving on that stretch of holes at PVGC but sometime I'll show you the drawing of what the 14th cape hole could have been and what a par 4 15th and par 5 16th may have been and I for one believe that set might've actually improved on what's there now, believe it or not. #17 would've been longer too which would probably work better today.

Crump seemed to like that occassional edge of the envelope "shot testing" demand somewhat like demanding that you ring the bell at the state fair.  

[TEPaul]

Sully:

I'll take that bet provided we can bring Nebraska's own "Long John" Hurley to PVGC before young Matt takes a crack at #7 in two.  

I don't understand that kind of excessive distance but the guys Hurley was playing those practice rounds with, all of whom qualified for match play, eventually said to me; "None of us are in the slightest bit short by modern standards but that guy Hurley is ridiculous."

"Long John" Hurley would have no problem at all hitting either #7 or #15 in two---none! He probably wouldn't have any problem hitting #8 and #12 with a 3-wood and it wouldn't surprise me to see him drive it all the way on #17 or even over the corner and trees and onto #6. Not just that but his driver isn't even "optimized"

[Jay Carstens]

...it takes progressively more guts for every ten yards further you try to hit your second shot.  

Bayside's 11th hole in Ogallala reminds me a little bit of Pine Valley's 15th.  It's got the same 'off the edge of the earth' feel to it.  Straight downwind for your second shot, you could hit just about any club in the bag and be right.  

http://www.baysidegolf.com/page/219-7777.htm?course_id=186&hole=11

[archie_struthers]

 


Tom,

Would love to see the pictures. Young Matt caddied for Carlton Forrester, who won the Crump. Got to believe he's has to learn a lot of golf just hanging around these guys.

Also, he's gonna get lots of shots at #7 and sooner or later the conditions will have to be right. Good luck to Matt.



Tom p.s.   I played with Mike Dunaway (long drive champ) and he flew it into the left bunker on #6 by flying it over the trees!! LOL   He just hooked it a little, and with persimmon no less!

[Bryce Mueller]

i played with matt twice this summer at pine valley, and neither of us got there in two, i did hit two monster shots that got into the middle of the greenside bunker, but that after proping my ball up and using my 13 degree sonartec which is as close to a driver as any fairway wood ever has been...

he does hit it forever though, and with a cut no less...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Why do you think that "progressive difficulty" isn't employed more on par 5's.

Michael Dugger,

Doesn't the right side hill provide a backstop or deflecting board, effectively expanding the landing zone for second shots and allowing shots off line to the right to be redirected back toward the fairway ?

I'd submit that the hole plays wider than the yardage in the second shot LZ.

[Michael Dugger]

Michael Dugger,

Doesn't the right side hill provide a backstop or deflecting board, effectively expanding the landing zone for second shots and allowing shots off line to the right to be redirected back toward the fairway ?

I'd submit that the hole plays wider than the yardage in the second shot LZ.

Yeah, indeed there is a hill to the right.  I have never found it all that usable, however, because the trees encroach quite a bit.

I figure if you are "aiming" to run in your approach off that hill, the margin of error is so small you may as well just fire at the center of the green itself, where an off line shot will not be cut down.

[JESII]

Michael Dugger and Patrick Mucci,

Are you talking about #15 at Pine Valley? If so, what have I missed?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()