New back tee at #4 at Pine Valley?

[TEPaul]

Mark:

I agree with you. That one in the photo as well as the new one on #7 just never looked right at all to me because it's propping something up high in an area that falls away the other way. I call that kind of thing and that kind of look "adding an additional stern onto and above the back of an aircraft carrier." You know what those old wooden 17th and 18th century naval warships "stepped up" sterns used to look like? Same kind of thing.  

The only real way you can minimize that look is to completely surround a back tee like that with trees, bushes and vegetation. That's what they're able to do on PV's new back tee on #3 and #14. Only trouble is after some decades the trees and such get too big and too high and then you have to get them out of there for light to let grass grow. I very much like what they did recently on the JAB tee on #12 despite the fact that all the clearing out does expose it as looking like the back of a ship, but the light and openness in there is refreshing, and of course it did become necessary for the agronomy.

[JESII]

A question from someone who's never been to or played PV:

Is ADDITIONAL length a particularly important aspect of the course's
"resistance to scoring" (relative to, say, other top-flight courses)?

Thanks
Peter

Peter,

I edited in a word there that'll make your question easier to answer. I hope you do not mind.

Let's look at the holes they have lengthened recently...#7 has become substantially more difficult now than before. It is a par 5 with a cross bunker that now requires about 480 yards total distance to carry just to have a chance to hit the green in regulation. this is about a 60 yard increase. I would guestimate a third of a stroke increase to the average score for the Crump Cup field in qualifying.

#9 has just reintroduced the driver to long players hands. I couldn't say it made the hole substantially more difficult, but it is now a driver and mid-iron as opposed to 3 wood mid-iron.

#13 is another that virtually forced driver back into the players hands...so long as he can hit his driver as straight as the next club in his arsenal it probably isn't any tougher, but the question is...as many people speculate on here...is the driver now the easiest club to hit?

#15 is longer and now a real tough three shotter, but the angle change might have made the tee shot easier...it did for me. still a driver under all conditions and I can get it somewhere between 300 and 350 depending on the conditions...this green (more than any other I have ever played) seems to force your hand a shot early...you really have to consider what you will be comfortable doing with an iron approach / a chip or pitch, and of course putting before selecting your club for the second shot.

#16 is a big league hole now when it had lost a bit of that...and I will say that the tee looks like it was built with the rest of the course yet is only 5 or 8 years old. Distance has absolutely added to the resistance to scoring equation on this hole.

#18...somewhat like #15 is from a more forgiving angle, but has added enough length that it is a driver without question and should really be well struck. people will say the green is underwhelming for the closing hole on the best course in the world...I'd say it suits the hole very well. Rest in the comfort of the green being a piece of cake and you'll make a bogey around it in no time flat, I guarantee it.




EDIT: When I say I can get it between 300 and 350, I mean that is how far from the green I will be after a decent drive. Not how far from the tee...

[Peter Pallotta]

JES - thanks, and for that level of detail.
No, I don't mind at all; though I asked the question the way I did because my knowledge of PV is so limited that I needed to get a basic sense of its 'resistance to scoring' first, independently of asking about any lengthening.

Your answer and TE's together are very helpful. If I tried to synthesize the two, could I say:

"Length as simply length was never PV's primary defence, nor is it not now intended to be. The ongoing lengthening of PV as a means of off-setting years of technological advances aims to bring fully back into play the varied and complicated hazards and required recovery shots that have always been the primary aspect of PV's resistance to scoring".

As always, I don't want to put words in people's mouths, but is that a fairly accurate synthesis, and is it in fact true?  And if so, does the new back tee at #4 fit in with that philosophy?

Thanks
Peter        

[JESII]

Peter,


I'd say yes to everything except the recovery shot idea. This comment will draw Pat Mucci and Mike Cirba into the fray, but I don't think Pine Valley was intended to encourage the recovery shot...at least not in the sense that most think of it on here. I think the course was designed with the intention of penalizing wayward shots like no other course before or since. They give you fairways that are anywhere from 50 to 80 yards wide but they make it very clear that you better hit it.

The argument that will arise between PM and myself is that the tree overgrowth stifles what were intended as bunkers players could attempt a heroic recovery from. The thing is, there are thousands of little sandy areas that I am sure are/were bunkers but are now literally in the middle of the trees...the trouble with that argument is that they are also 20 yards away from a 75 yard wide fairway, so telling me the player deserves (and the course was designed to provide) a route to the green if he so chooses carries no water.

Would it be an improvement if Pine Valley chose to clear out most or all of its trees? I think it would be the most visually stunning inland golf course on the planet. Would it change one iota of my strategic approach to the golf course? NOPE!

[TEPaul]

Sully:

Posts #26 and #28 are good, really, really good. There's a lot of very fine explanation of the nuances of the course and the holes mentioned in those posts. Those posts just show that PV is a golf course that takes a lot of time and analysis to come to know really well and obviously you know it very well indeed.

I'm sure you recognize that it is one thing to come to understand a course well in the context of one's own game and in your case a very good game at that but I've got to tell you that a good deal of your understanding of that golf course had to have come from your experiences and observations caddying there. Obviously the same is very true of Archie Struthers. How else would you be able to understand the course well in the context of the other playing levels?

Your remark about the angle of the new back tee on #15 fairway is a very good one too. I've always thought that to be the case as in a way you're playing more into the "bolster" of the left to right cant of the fairway. I realize that's a bit architecturally formulaic but nevertheless it looks and feels better to me on a hole that long and that "three shot" demanding. And a very good explanation of how much the second shot sets up all kinds of third shot ramifications.

It's seems incredible and maybe sort of sacronsanct to say but I've always felt the former back tee on #15 is the only real architectural weak point on the golf course (it's just needlessly close to the 14th green), and I really do believe it Crump had lived and had time to reconsider and fool around with perhaps 14-17 the way they say he wanted to that those holes would be even better than they are.

Had he lived and had the time to do what they said he wanted to finish on #13 that would be one helluva subject for debate and discussion on here, and certainly given the fact #13 is considered by some to be one of the best par 4s in the world.

First of all, had he lived, it was probably more than possible that he may've created one of the most remarkable cape holes with #14, #15 as nessecarily a long uphill par 4, #16 as the par 5 with perhaps a semi-water carry on the third shot and #17 as a longer and more demanding par 4 than it has always been, even if the second half of #17 and the green by Crump was not much like it is now.

[KBanks]

How long has the championship yardage at PVGC held at 6,999 yards? That is the number on my card from a visit last summer. Is 7000 yards any sort of a Rubicon for them?

Archie Struthers: thanks for your reminiscence of Ed Tutwiler. He had one of the finest golf swings I have ever seen.

Ken

[peter_mcknight]

Could somebody please post the most recent scorecard from Pine Valley so I have some sort of understanding of what holes were lengthened from the previous 6765 yard tees?  Thanks.

[JESII]

TEP,


I would say Archie has a level of understanding of that golf course I might never achieve. His mention of the little convex ridge line running into the 4th green, and the added interest/challenge that presents under firm conditions is something I only recognized subconciously (ie: when he wrote it I remembered it, but I never would have come up with it myself). I'll bet he could come up with a couple per hole all through the course that have slipped below our radar...


You have often mentioned that potentially different outcome for the 14 - 17 corner of the course. I'll say this about it...#14 is the least impressive hole on the course for me, but #'15 and 16 are right at the top of my list, and #17 is great as well so I am quite happy with what came to be. The only thing about 17 is that it really has become quite short...I think 3 or 4 iron is about all I can hit off the tee unless the wind is into...I wouldn't mind needing to hit a 250 shot or so, but I still bogey the thing about half the time as it is so what am I complaining about?

[JESII]

Oh, and by the way...Willie Dow's reply #2 is the most accurate and observant post on this thread...even moreso than Archie coming up with that little ridge thingy...

[TEPaul]

"How long has the championship yardage at PVGC held at 6,999 yards? That is the number on my card from a visit last summer. Is 7000 yards any sort of a Rubicon for them?"

The tip yardage on the present card is 6,999. It's been that way for a couple of years now. I don't think 7,000 was some kind of Rubicon they were unwilling to cross and if they put in the discussed new tee on #4 they'll cross that Rubicon and 7,000 anyway.

It seems like a couple of years ago (it must have been something like the Baily Cup) a couple of us were having breakfast or lunch with Mr Brewer, president of the club, and I asked him what the new tip yardage was going to be. He said it was going to be 6,999 and I said: Geez, Gordon, if you want 7 grand I bet I could find you another yard or three out there somewhere",  and he just said 6,999 happened to be the way it worked out and totalled up. I doubt they could care less what the total tip yardage is. Again, it's not that kind of course---it definitely has a whole lot more going for it to get concerned about something like that.

Willie Dow:

Would you let us take you back out to #4 to see if you could do that again? Frankly, if it got that far you sort of got screwed it dropped off the road in SW range. Since it's all downhill on the road for about the last 250 yards your ball could've gone all the way down to where you could have practically putted it from around the pro shop door.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I haven't read any of the posts on this thread, but, the issue of a back tee on # 4 or any hole brings up an interesting question.

# 4 could be described as a unique hole.
The drive from a lower tee to a high ridge that falls back down to a fairly level fairway with a series of rough and cross bunkers at the end of the first fairway presents an interesting DZ for a variety of golfers.

Some can drive to the lower, forward fairway area.
Others cannot and are faced with downhill-sidehill lies.
Some aspire to reach the plateau top of the ridge and others can't make it to the top of the ridge, leaving them a blind shot to a green that seemlessly transitions out of the fairway, a fairway and green that continue to run away from the golfer.

In examining the viability of a new tee, shouldn't Crump's intent with respect to the play of the hole be considered ?

Approaching that green from anywhere ON the ridge was always a difficult shot.

Approaching that green from the forward, lower, far side of the ridge is a relatively easy shot.

Where did Crump want the approach shot played from ?

And, did he want golfers to play irons and 3-woods off the tee in order to get to the prefered DZ ?

I think you have to examine all of those questions and others before deciding on the merits of a new back tee, and the angle of attack it presents into the ridge and land beyond.

TEPaul,

While I agree with you that a set of tee markers should always be back, I think another set of tee markers should present a reasonable and enjoyable challenge for those golfers not deemed to be of championship caliber.

Also, don't forget that 6,999 as a par 70 is a pretty fair sized golf course.

However, Pine Valley has fairways and greens that are below the level of the tee, making the golf course play shorter.

# 2, # 3 # 8, # 11, # 14, # 16 and # 18 amongst them.
In addition, some second shots are downhill, like, # 4, # 13, and # 16.  So yardage alone doesn't tell the entire story.

[JSlonis]

I was out at PV today.  The course was fairly soft from all the rain we've had and it was cool and breezy.  #4 played into the wind.  Our group played the back tees.  On #4, I hit my DRIVER right up the right center like I wanted, but I didn't quite catch it 100%.  I was surprised to see that my ball stayed on top the ridge.  During the summer or fall, I hit 3 wood 99% of the time to the bottom level.  I had 203 to the front edge and the pin was 23 yards on toward the back left.  I then hit a very good 4 iron to about 20 feet, but it is defintely not a shot I'd want to hit the majority of the time.  If my drive had just gone an extra 5 yards, it would have then tumbled down another 25-30 to the bottom, for a much more comfortable mid-iron.

I looked behind to again check out the area for the new intended tree.  If that project is ever started, it will be a very big undertaking.  There will have to be several trees removed just to begin.  I don't know the exact distance that would be added, but it has to be at least 35-45 yards.  The current back tee yardage is 451.  With the hole at 480+, it would become extremely difficult.  Not everyone that plays in the Crump Cup is a super long hitter, and I can think of quite a few guys that would struggle to reach the top of the ridge, and others struggle just to reach the fairway.  

If that ridgeline to the right of the current tee was cleared all the way up the hill, in order to accomodate the new tee, it would be an awesome and demanding shot.

Pat,

#2 is uphill the whole way. There are couple of downhill shots on it though, the pitch out backwards from either side of the fairway bunkers or any shot after you've hit you approach past the hole.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You should read the posts on this thread because the answers to your questions----

"Where did Crump want the approach shot played from ?"

"And, did he want golfers to play irons and 3-woods off the tee in order to get to the prefered DZ ?"

----are all in those posts.

"I think you have to examine all of those questions and others before deciding on the merits of a new back tee, and the angle of attack it presents into the ridge and land beyond."

Those questions were all examined and the interesting thing, as with some of the other shot values on other holes that've had recent tee additions is there basically has been a return of what he wanted those holes to be, including the proposed tee addition on the 4th.

It can also be very well documented that Crump considered the "pimple" on the 18th green to be a temporary feature but for some reason you don't seem to accept that and have proposed it be restored. Why is that if you here and now think Crump's intentions should be examined if anything is to be done?  

[Kalen Braley]

Here is an aerial of the 3rd green and 4th tee.  Can someone edit this pic on thier PC to show where the proposed tee box would be??

[TEPaul]

Kalen:

Look below the tees on #4 (you can just see it to the side and behind #3 green) and if you look closely you will see a road crossing perpendicularly below it. Look just below that and you will see two dark spots (that's part of the water at the far end of the lake below the dorm, Crump's old house and the 5th tee). Just below and to the left of the left dark spot is where the new proposed tee would probably be.

Pat:

The LZ on #2 is one of the most deceptively uphill situations I've ever seen on a golf hole. It's a good 15 ft above the tee. It probably doesn't look it because the green at the end is so high.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen:

Look below the tees on #4 (you can just see it to the side and behind #3 green) and if you look closely you will see a road crossing perpendicularly below it. Look just below that and you will see two dark spots (that's part of the water at the far end of the lake below the dorm, Crump's old house and the 5th tee). Just below and to the left of the left dark spot is where the new proposed tee would probably be.

Pat:

The LZ on #2 is one of the most deceptively uphill situations I've ever seen on a golf hole. It's a good 15 ft above the tee. It probably doesn't look it because the green at the end is so high.

Thanks Tom,

Thats a pretty good description.  So not only will it play longer, but it will require more of a left to right shot.  Very nice...

[TEPaul]

Much longer, somewhat more left to right and quite a bit lower. You can see there'll have to be some pretty significant tree removal up along the hill on the right. Basically there's so much neat stuff they could do on the first half of that hole that would be restorative to its original. For instance there is a considerable amount of neat in-line bunkers on the left of the fairway that continue up the ridge and down the hill on the left. It's all in trees now and unseen from the tees. If they cleared it out some and exposed that old bunkering to the 4th tees it would be way cool and probably even more scary looking and it wouldn't really impact anything as dangerous because those trees up the hill and behind to the left of #2 green don't really do anything for anything except to cover up some neat old Crump bunkers on the left of the 4th.

[JESII]

Tom,


Are you 100% sure the proposed tee would be at a lower elevation than the current? The location that was pointed out to me was well up the hill back there and I would guess is 10 or 15 feet higher elevation than the current tee...but I am not 100%...

[TEPaul]

Jim:

I went back there about a year ago with someone who should know but I can't be sure I was where they really will put it due to a variety of reasons such as the environemental people. The sensation to me was it was below the present tee back in there and that they'd have to go too far back and up the hill on the other side to get it on a level with the present tees. My recollection is it didn't seem all that much more uphill from back there so who knows. At this point it's something you pretty much have to look at in the winter to get much of a sense of what it'd be like. I may be wrong but I don't think this is all just PVs' decision at this point because it may've come up with the environmental people. They pop up in golf all the time now and for the damnedest reasons.

I'll tell you one thing that aerial of Kalen's shows and that is what a remarkable shot of Willie Dow's it must have been for him to get his tee shot all the way down the road to within SW range of the green.  

[AndrewB]

JES II,

The argument that will arise between PM and myself is that the tree overgrowth stifles what were intended as bunkers players could attempt a heroic recovery from. The thing is, there are thousands of little sandy areas that I am sure are/were bunkers but are now literally in the middle of the trees...the trouble with that argument is that they are also 20 yards away from a 75 yard wide fairway, so telling me the player deserves (and the course was designed to provide) a route to the green if he so chooses carries no water.

Would you say that portions of those 75 yard wide fairways themselves present the opportunity for a recovery shot, so to speak?  That is, are there certain areas of the fairways and certain hole locations that will require an equally "heroic" shot (to get close to the hole) as one from a hazard on, say, an average course?

I guess I'm asking whether the holes, and in particular the green complexes, are designed such that a "recovery shot" is necessary if one misses the correct portion of the fairway for that day's hole location.

I've seen the course, but not nearly as many as times as you and others.

[Sean Leary]

I was out at PV today.  The course was fairly soft from all the rain we've had and it was cool and breezy.  #4 played into the wind.  Our group played the back tees.  On #4, I hit my DRIVER right up the right center like I wanted, but I didn't quite catch it 100%.  I was surprised to see that my ball stayed on top the ridge.  During the summer or fall, I hit 3 wood 99% of the time to the bottom level.  I had 203 to the front edge and the pin was 23 yards on toward the back left.  I then hit a very good 4 iron to about 20 feet, but it is defintely not a shot I'd want to hit the majority of the time.  If my drive had just gone an extra 5 yards, it would have then tumbled down another 25-30 to the bottom, for a much more comfortable mid-iron.

I looked behind to again check out the area for the new intended tree.  If that project is ever started, it will be a very big undertaking.  There will have to be several trees removed just to begin.  I don't know the exact distance that would be added, but it has to be at least 35-45 yards.  The current back tee yardage is 451.  With the hole at 480+, it would become extremely difficult.  Not everyone that plays in the Crump Cup is a super long hitter, and I can think of quite a few guys that would struggle to reach the top of the ridge, and others struggle just to reach the fairway.  

If that ridgeline to the right of the current tee was cleared all the way up the hill, in order to accomodate the new tee, it would be an awesome and demanding shot.

Pat,

#2 is uphill the whole way. There are couple of downhill shots on it though, the pitch out backwards from either side of the fairway bunkers or any shot after you've hit you approach past the hole.

Jamie,

Did you have any trouble clearing the last hill on 13 since it was so cold out?  We had a couple of guys who are reasonably long (One a state am champ) have trouble getting it up over the last upslope on the left hand side (which I never even noticed before from the old back tee hitting a 3 wood)

For me, 2 is the scariest hole out there. Just kills me.

[TEPaul]

Andrew:

You can be on the sides of fairways on holes #1, #6, somewhat to right #9 green, #11, #12, #13, #15, #16. But by far the most strategic tree situation at PVGC is to go too far left (which is very easy to do) on the tee shot on #11. Those trees are highly strategic for that tee shot and my personal opinion is because of that they should stay at all costs. They make golfers really think and plan and execute on that tee and of course that is never a bad thing.

Sean:

To carry that upslope on the left on #13 (it's called Hollman's Hollow) from the new tips is now app a 265 yard carry. It may be a good thing Crump didn't live because if he had there would very likely now be a humongous bunker set into the uplope on the far side of Hollman's Hollow.  

[JSlonis]

Sean,

I hit my tee shot on the line that I wanted...up the right center to avoid that hollow on the left.  I still had @ 220 into the green, with the wind in our face.  Two guys in our group pulled their tee shots slightly and didn't make it over that hollow.  Their tee shots both gathered to the left rough at the bottom, and they didn't have much of a 2nd shot.

[JSlonis]

Taking this picture posted earlier, for informational purposes.  I believe where I've marked in red, is about where the new tee would be located. It may be even a bit right of that. As Tom has stated earlier, a clearing of the ridgeline along the right side coupled with the exposure of Crump's original bunkers down the left of the fairway would create just a spectacular view.  Even though the fairway is fairly wide, from the current tee it plays narrower due to the left fall-away feature of that ridge.  It was an ingenious use of that landform.

[Sean Leary]

Jamie,

How far right of the tee box is it.  I was just looking at the area right across the road behind the tee box, but yours looks like way up the hill and farther right if I am looking at it correctly?