New back tee at #4 at Pine Valley?

[JSlonis]

Sean,

It appears to me as if the new tee would be about 15-20 yards to the right of and about 35-45 yards behind the current tee.  I didn't see any area directly behind the current tee that would work.  It just falls down to quickly, and the opposite hillside doesn't rise to a similar level for that area to be a viable spot.

[Bryce Mueller]

i think that would be a great tee box. as i stated earlier, 3 wood goes almost through the fairway now for a longer hitter, i know i hit half 9 iron into it this summer.
This tee box will not only force driver to get to a similar spot but i'm not even sure we (big bombers) could get it there because if its that far back and to the right it will force a softer fade which will prevent a low running shot that runs all the way to the bottom. I think that tee box would be great...

[Patrick_Mucci]

JSlonis & TEPaul,

I'm aware that the DZ on # 2 at PV is uphill in nature,
nonetheless, the tee is elevated well above the surrounding and fronting land.

[JESII]

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.

Pat,  

Based on the quoted section above, it appears you think the fairway on #2 might be below the level of the tee, yet in this most recent post (reply #52) you simply say it is above the surrounding terrain. I'll let you off the hook with merely a referrence to the disparity so you owe me one...

[JESII]

Jamie and Tom,

thanks for the clarification on the proposed tee location...it certainly is a great deal differnt from where I was pointed. In that photo posted, the spot I was pointed to was about at that open sandy spot that is extended 30 or so yards on the line Jamie drew...now that would be nasty.

If the tee is built were Jamie's box is, it will not force me to play from the top of the hill, and Jamie is longer than me. I would bet that will be about 260 to get over the ridge...even uphill a little, I can do that in most conditions...especially with the firmness they strive for.   The upside to that location is the increased angle which will really require a left to right flight...I like the notion of "forcing" a particular shape off the tee...

[JSlonis]

Sully,

The proposed tee could be a bit behind what I created in "red", but I think it's close.  I would also guess that it's got be more than 260 yds from back there to clear the ridge.  Just eyeballing it, the proposed tee appears to me to be lower than the current, creating an even longer shot.

Nevertheless, it'll be interesting to see what occurs.  The potential is there for an even more spectacular tee shot.  The look that could be created by the exposure of that entire right ridgeline would be really special.

It's such a great course that we could probably talk about each hole for hours.

[JESII]

Jamie,

Do you think the recent (a couple years ago) additon of that fairway bunker up in the right rough at the top of the hill was a preemptive move against those of us that would try to blow it up that direction from this potential tee location? If so, it was a good one because you would really have to work it left to right for the best chance at catching the hill.

[JSlonis]

Jamie,

Do you think the recent (a couple years ago) additon of that fairway bunker up in the right rough at the top of the hill was a preemptive move against those of us that would try to blow it up that direction from this potential tee location? If so, it was a good one because you would really have to work it left to right for the best chance at catching the hill.

I hadn't thought about that, but it certainly is a good point.  Based on the Google Earth Image below, there is a neat feature that allows you to determine in yards, a certain distance.  On the image below, the line drawn from about where the new tee would be to an area near the top of the ridge is exactly 280 YDS.

[Sean Leary]

Didn't we get in trouble last time we used the yardage feature on a Philly area course?......Here we go again..

[JESII]

thanks Jamie, that looks good to me...the only trouble then is it's about 265 or 270 right at the right corner of the fairway...either way, it's still just a 3-wood for you.


Sean Leary,


You're dead-on right...and with GAP Match season approaching Jamie is the absolute sworn enemy anyway so I'll have to see if I can round up some of my mafia brethren to take him down...

[JSlonis]

Sully,

I will need every bit of a driver from that new tee...AND

I think you've watched "The Dep-ah-ted" one too many times.  I'll be on the lookout for sure, and I will warn my Tavistock brethren.

[Sean Leary]

Sean Leary,


You're dead-on right...and with GAP Match season approaching Jamie is the absolute sworn enemy anyway so I'll have to see if I can round up some of my mafia brethren to take him down...

I think I saw those guys last Wed night at La Veranda. It was date night at La Veranda..Good times.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

Pat,  

Based on the quoted section above, it appears you think the fairway on #2 might be below the level of the tee, yet in this most recent post (reply #52) you simply say it is above the surrounding terrain.

Those aren't mutually exclusive statements.

The same could be said about the tee on # 3, # 14, # 16 or # 18.[/color]

I'll let you off the hook with merely a referrence to the disparity so you owe me one...

There is NO disparity.

The 2nd tee sits well above its surrounds.

The terrain below the tee gradually rises until it reaches the base of the hill supporting the green, where the rise becomes steep.

When you have an elevated tee facing an inclined plane which begins at the base of that tee,  eventually, the fairway will rise above the level of the tee.

As to the crossover point, I couldn't tell you the exact yardage at which it occurs.

The great Houdini lives !  [/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II, JSlonis & TEPaul,

Don't you feel that there's a problem with altering the current angle of attack off the tee in light of the cant of the ridge ?

A tee further right would seem to create additional problems off the tee when you consider the angle and slope orientations of that ridge.

Your thoughts

[Kalen Braley]

If making that hole more that a tad more difficult is the objective, then its not a problem.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kalen,

That's alot more than a "tad"

[JESII]

JES II, JSlonis & TEPaul,

Don't you feel that there's a problem with altering the current angle of attack off the tee in light of the cant of the ridge ?

A tee further right would seem to create additional problems off the tee when you consider the angle and slope orientations of that ridge.

Your thoughts

Pat,

I think it's a bonus. The combination of increased yardage and increased demand on ball control is a great thing. According to Jamie's aerial, going over the ridge is still going to be well within reason for the majority of the guys playing competitive golf there, so sharpening the need to hit an accurate (properly shaped) shot is fine with me...

[TEPaul]

"A tee further right would seem to create additional problems off the tee when you consider the angle and slope orientations of that ridge.
Your thoughts"

Pat:

I'm not sure what you mean by additional problems. Do you mean for the golfer stratetically?

Hopefully, the club is clear in exactly what they're trying to accomplish strategically with this new proposed tee on #4.

It would seem to me the primary intention should be to keep far more tee shots up on top of the ridge where the approach shot in is much longer compared to the drive filtering down the signficant incline at the far end of the ridge. This was Crump's intention (and supported in documentation by W.C. Fownes in the 1921 Advisory Committee work).

As I mentioned earlier on this thread that ridge top is very big---eg 55-65 yards wide and app 65-75 yards in depth. If they add 35-50 yards of tee yardage on that hole and probably from a slightly lower elevation that would make the tee shot effectively even longer that should keep most drives on top of that ridge and accomplish that purpose and Crump's old strategic intention.

But there is more. Obviously, this new tee position has to be somewhat to the right of the present tips just to create an unencumbered shot up the long sandy hill to the beginning of the ridge fairway. By the way the beginning of the fairway is still inclining for maybe 20-25 yards depending on which line is taken.

But there is still more, much more. Up until about five years ago there was a rather remarkable high risk/high reward line to take off that tee, particularly for players who weren't real bombers. It was to the extreme right side---so much right in fact that it actually looked from the tee like you had to miss the drive right into the junk and bunkering to the right. It always amazed me when the caddies gave you the safe sign  that the ball had filtered down to the lower tier when you took that extreme right line. And a few years ago there was a lone tree up there that you almost had to hit the ball at.

In the last five years they actually brought a new right side bunker on that extreme right line more into the fairway basically taking away some to most of that speed slot on the extreme right.

Logically, it would seem to me if they are going to add all this tee length on this hole they should probably consider reestablishing that extreme right speed slot by removing that bunker they just built over the hill on the right. In theory this could recreate that high risk/high reward strategy of going to the extreme right to attempt to get down the hill. Again the shortest and easiest way to get over the ridge is to hit the ball to the extreme right side of this hole on the drive.

If everything went according to an ideal strategic plan I would think perhaps 10-20% of the big hitters could try this line for a huge reward albeit with considerable risk.

In my mind, it isn't a very good strategic concept to attempt to do something that would completely remove this high risk/high reward option for the long hitter.

The rest will probably just have to content themselves with placing their tee shot up on top of the ridge for that long second shot in which again was Crump's intention on this hole. #4 was supposed to be a two shot "shot-testing" hole, and the long second from the top of the ridge was the other half of the hole's strategic concept. So if they are going to do this the result should be that going down to the lower tier is pretty infrequent even though that temptation should not be lost, in my opinion.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The additional problems are that you'd now be aiming into the treeline on the left and that the terrain in and near the newly intended DZ would kick balls to the left, into the treeline.  

I don't believe that was Crump's intent.

It would seem prudent to preserve the present angle of attack, and certainly not alter it by moving the tee further to the right.

It would appear that Crump's intent was quite clear and is evidenced by the early photos of the 4th hole depicting the location of the tee, the fairway and DZ you reference.

Why make the hole an awkward dogleg, which certainly wasn't Crump's intent in design and contstruction ?

Why not create a back tee directly behind the original tee ?

While the terrain falls off precipitously, ample fill could create a back tee that conforms to Crump's design and playability intent.

Pine Valley has ample photographic evidence of Crump's design, construction and playability intent, therefore, there's NO need to interpret where a new tee should go !

[Sean Leary]

TEPaul,

Why not create a back tee directly behind the original tee ?

While the terrain falls off precipitously, ample fill could create a back tee that conforms to Crump's design and playability intent.

Pine Valley has ample photographic evidence of Crump's design, construction and playability intent, therefore, there's NO need to interpret where a new tee should go !

Pat, in my original post, I assumed that the tee would be basically directly behind the current tee, which is why said that a ton of dirt would need to be moved to create that tee.  The trees that looke like they were marked were just on the other side of the road, not where Jamie's drawing was.

If the tee ball ends up where Crump intended it to be played from, then I am OK with it (similar to 18, which also now has a different angle, but balls end up where they were originally intended to).  Hard to tell though.

[JSlonis]

Sean,

There are trees that are marked that are just across the road, in front of the small wetlands area.  I believe I saw some other trees marked that were in the general area of where I marked the new tee on that aerial.  

I didn't think the new tee would be located just across that road.  It appears to sit too far below the original tee and the only area that looked like it could work would be farther back where the hillside starts to rise.

It might just be poor specualtion on my part, but based on the current topography of the land behind the original tee, it appears that area is the most feasible spot.  I'm sure as well, that if the club wanted the new tee to play along the same line as the original, they could definitely make it happen.  It would take reconstructing the entire hillside however.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

It would not be possible to put a new tee directly behind the present tee thereby keeping the exact same angle on the fairway. Just go to the back of that tee and look back in there to see why. The back of the present back tee falls off really steeply down to the road and beyond for one. Going slightly to the right and back however opens up a natural incline to the fairway because the line of drive is slightly to the right of the high back of the present tee.

Crump (or perhaps Colt) may even have once considered this angle for the drive on #4. One can see this from the old routing maps. At one point a 3rd green iteration on those topos looked like it was placed about where the present back tee on #4 is today. That would've necessitated the 4th tee being more to the right.

One thing Crump may not have approved of initially with this new proposed back tee is the walk back to it. Crump seemed more fixated than any architect of which I'm aware on really tight green to next tee positioning and PV has that as much as any course I'm aware of. The only place the course doesn't have that is between #11 and #12 and the record shows Crump planned to do something about that.

Furthermore, if they are clearing trees out in that area of the proposed new tee it may not just have to do with the actual tee placement. They're going to need to get a lot more light back down in there to grow good grass.

[JESII]

TEPaul,

The additional problems are that you'd now be aiming into the treeline on the left and that the terrain in and near the newly intended DZ would kick balls to the left, into the treeline.  

I don't believe that was Crump's intent.

It would seem prudent to preserve the present angle of attack, and certainly not alter it by moving the tee further to the right.

It would appear that Crump's intent was quite clear and is evidenced by the early photos of the 4th hole depicting the location of the tee, the fairway and DZ you reference.

Why make the hole an awkward dogleg, which certainly wasn't Crump's intent in design and contstruction ?

Why not create a back tee directly behind the original tee ?

While the terrain falls off precipitously, ample fill could create a back tee that conforms to Crump's design and playability intent.

Pine Valley has ample photographic evidence of Crump's design, construction and playability intent, therefore, there's NO need to interpret where a new tee should go !

Pat,


How long do you think the hole would have to be to keep the long player on top of the ridge? It is apparently documented that this was Crump's intent (to have the long players on top of the ridge for their approach). While the current tee location is also a suggestion of his intent for playing angle, I think length plus angle will increase the number of second shots played from up top as opposed to purely increased length. Which fully appeases his documented intent.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

From where this new tee seems slated to go you would not be aiming into the treeline on the left. My feeling looking at it a year or so ago was that the angle is not much changed. As I've said a number of times now on this thread there's a ton of both width and depth up on top of that big fairway ridge, and actually from as far back as this new tee is slated to go it will actually be less likely that even long hitters will go left off the fairway because most of that happens at the far end of the ridge on the left and down the hill on the left anyway. And as I also said on here they can actually recreate some of that original strategy of cutting very close to the right side for the best second shot and second shot approach angle. Some of that original extreme right side strategy was actually somewhat changed in the last 3-4 years.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The additional problems are that you'd now be aiming into the treeline on the left and that the terrain in and near the newly intended DZ would kick balls to the left, into the treeline.  

I don't believe that was Crump's intent.

It would seem prudent to preserve the present angle of attack, and certainly not alter it by moving the tee further to the right.

It would appear that Crump's intent was quite clear and is evidenced by the early photos of the 4th hole depicting the location of the tee, the fairway and DZ you reference.

Why make the hole an awkward dogleg, which certainly wasn't Crump's intent in design and contstruction ?

Why not create a back tee directly behind the original tee ?

While the terrain falls off precipitously, ample fill could create a back tee that conforms to Crump's design and playability intent.

Pine Valley has ample photographic evidence of Crump's design, construction and playability intent, therefore, there's NO need to interpret where a new tee should go !

Pat,


How long do you think the hole would have to be to keep the long player on top of the ridge?

You have to remember that the current tee sits well below that ridge, so it's not the normal length one associates with the distance between tee and DZ.

And, if the tee was lower than the current tee, that would somewhat mute the need for pure length.[/color]

It is apparently documented that this was Crump's intent (to have the long players on top of the ridge for their approach).

While the current tee location is also a suggestion of his intent for playing angle, I think length plus angle will increase the number of second shots played from up top as opposed to purely increased length.

I think altering the playing angle by bringing the tee further right will distort Crump's intention because it alters the interfacing of the topography represented by the ridge with the flight of the ball from a tee located further to the right.

If you'll examine photos circa 1922-1928 you'll see that the tee was very close to the 3rd green, something TEPaul references as well.  Moving the 4th tee further away from the 3rd green can't be in the spirit of Crump's intent as it relates to play from the tee.

Good and well intentioned people aren't exempt from making mistakes.  Constructive criticism promotes progress.[/color]

Which fully appeases his documented intent.

I would strongly disagree with that.
I think it distorts and is counter to Crump's intent.

Crump's intent is manifested in the photos of the original 4th tee, close to the 3rd green.

Moving the 4th tee further and further to the right distorts and undermines Crump's intent.[/color]

TEPaul,

I'm aware of the steep fall off behind the current tee, and the road.

Wouldn't you agree that the ideal solution would be to extend the tee back, behind the original 4th tee instead of behind the current 4th tee, or to the right of the current 4th tee ?

At what point does the shifting of the tee, dramatically changing of the angle of attack remove the hole from being a Crump hole ?

Certainly Crump had to be aware of the terrain surrounding the 4th tee, original, current and proposed.

Why do you think he chose to locate the tee where it was ?
Because it presented the hole the way HE wanted it to be presented.

These modern day interpretations are counter to his design and construction concepts.

Why not try to mirror his concepts in a modern context by extending the tee back from its original location ?

It can't be for lack of funds

As you mentioned, I recall when play was intended up the shorter right side, tempting the bunkers.  A tee further to the right would do more to eliminate that play than encourage it.