News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Peter Pallotta

A Thought about Pine Valley - Bunkers
« on: June 10, 2007, 11:33:35 PM »
As the title says, just a thought I had about bunkers while reading a 1915 article on Pine Valley.

There's been several good threads about bunkers lately, so I've been thinking about what I seem to like and why, and about the 'look' that's achieved when there's no bunkers at all, and how pleasant and peaceful that look is/could be (and how strategically effective on the right site.)

Then in this 1915 article (which also has pictures), you can see in the 'wide-shots' Pine Valley's big, sprawling bunkers and sandy areas...and they all look so absolutely ‘right’, and so 'natural'.

But what you can also see are the many pine trees, which trees the article notes are the native growth (along with cedars, and the Scotch firs and hemlocks that were brought there.) And even someone like me, who doesn't get into nature very often, has been to beachy areas and knows that whenever you're near a beach (at least in southern Ontario) you'll always find pine trees growing, and sometimes almost nothing but pine trees. Pine trees grow well in sandy soil, I guess.    

So here's the thought: does the bunkering at Pine Valley look so good and so natural mostly because the surrounding area/vegetation 'tells the eye' that sand -- and thus sand bunkers -- ARE natural to the area? Is it the overall nature of the site that 'fools the eye' into accepting that these big swatches of exposed sand have occurred naturally, on their own?

If so, I wonder if even the most wonderful architect’s best bunkering work (and sleight of hand, to ‘hide’ that work of his hands) will always need the ‘assistance’ of the right kind of ‘sandy’ vegetation or landscape around it in order for the bunkers to look fully ‘natural’.

Just a thought…and maybe a pretty simplistic one at that.

Peter      



« Last Edit: June 11, 2007, 08:42:28 AM by Peter Pallotta »

Michael Blake

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A Thought about Pine Valley - Bunkers
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2007, 01:40:14 PM »
Peter I've only been to Pine Valley a few times, walking the course at the Crump Cup and Phila Open.

But it seemed to me that the opposite is true.  Where most designers try to make the bunkers look "real" and "natural," I got the impression at Pine Valley that the trick they pulled off was making the beatiful green fairways look natural.

It may sound strange or even simplistic as well.  But that site is just so sandy that to me it feeks like Crump and crew had  to work it the other way around and used the site to "fool the eye" that all that green is natural and belongs there.

That's just my observation and the feeling I got at my first visit.

Not sure if it even makes sense.

Peter Pallotta

Re:A Thought about Pine Valley - Bunkers
« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2007, 02:07:29 PM »
Michael, thanks - that does make sense (and welcome, by the way). The article mentions that the bunker-making was the least expensive and easiest part of the process, suggesting that it just took scooping off a top layer of vegetation and there the bunker was. In the old black-and-while photos especially, it's the bunkers that my eye focussed on, and, having never been there, your point about all the greenery would never have occurred to me. Interestingly, the article also mentions serveral times how good the soil was from growing healthy and golfy turf, and how easily and quickly the greens 'took' after seeding.

Peter


TEPaul

Re:A Thought about Pine Valley - Bunkers
« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2007, 09:43:47 PM »
Peter:

That's a great big loaded post you initiated this thread with. There are so many great ways a discussion on that initial post could go.

And lo and behold the second post made a great point and asked a most interesting question in something of a counterpoint.

I've complimented you before, PeterP, on your thought processes on this website and this is another good example, perhaps the best yet.

This one will take some thought, at least on my part, but I'm excited just to deal with the questions.

I'm a little busy right now to get into this the way I'd like to but let's protect this thread and keep it going.

It reminds me of how good and how pure the threads and the discussions used to be when this website began.

Peter Pallotta

Re:A Thought about Pine Valley - Bunkers
« Reply #4 on: June 11, 2007, 11:43:04 PM »
Thanks, Tom.
A further thought then: I think it's interesting that bunkers so very different looking than the Pine Valley bunkers can also seem so right and so natural, and so at home in their particular setting. I'm thinking, of course, of the pot bunkers on the British links courses, which seem so right and natural that we've often wondered out loud here if they're the product of sheep and rabbit grazing etc. To keep the theme going, maybe that's because the nearby sandy coastline that dominant the view/landscape similarly 'tells the eye' that sand - and thus sand bunkers - are 'naturally occuring' features.

In general, then, I'm thinking that maybe the "shape" of the bunkers on a course (which I started paying more attention to only after I joined this board, and which I still think is important) isn't as important in giving them a natural look as is the overall impression of the vegetation/landscape that surrounds them.

I remember a thread Mike Young started quite a while back discussing the use of 'washouts' (I'm not sure that's the right word) instead of sand bunkers in areas that have clay-based soils. I think I'm starting to understand/see the value in that (though I don't have a parallel to what's needed to 'fool the eye' in that case).

Also, I wonder if on brand new courses built on say, old landfills sites, and that have to be totally manufactured and aren't within a hundred miles of sand or clay, it might not seem most 'natural' of all to forego the use of bunkers entirely, and create instead (i.e. in their place, both in the fairway and around greens) grassy depressions, deeper or shallower as needs be, and then let the natural pooling of water that happens at the bottom of them cause the grass there to grow thicker and longer, and thus act as a hazard that's somewhat similar (playing/strategy wise) to a sand bunker. I think that, no matter how little one gets into nature, we've all seen dips and hollows in grassy areas where the grass grows thicker, and that fact would help 'fool the eye' into giving these depressions a natural look.

I think one of the reasons this line of thinking seems important to me is that I assume it might bring construction costs down if "bunkers" (in whatever form they'd take) could be as easily and inexpensively created as they apparently were at Pine Valley.

Peter      
« Last Edit: June 11, 2007, 11:44:45 PM by Peter Pallotta »

AndrewB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A Thought about Pine Valley - Bunkers
« Reply #5 on: June 11, 2007, 11:46:16 PM »
Peter, where is this 1915 article you refer to from and it is available somewhere online?
"I think I have landed on something pretty fine."

Peter Pallotta

Re:A Thought about Pine Valley - Bunkers
« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2007, 12:29:20 AM »
Andrew
yes, it's available on line, but I don't have the link because I saved the file (I think properly) on my computer instead. If you IM me an email address I can send it to you as a pdf.

Peter


AndrewB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A Thought about Pine Valley - Bunkers
« Reply #7 on: June 13, 2007, 01:45:37 AM »
This article is really interesting; thanks for sending it to me, Peter.  I also found a copy of this through a web search, and the page containing the link appears to have all of the Golf Illustrated articles from 1914 and 1915.

This article was written by Simon Carr, the club's first secretary, and it almost reads like an advertisement rather than a description.  The article gives Colt complete credit for the design, stating specifically that the work on the course began after Colt's one week visit in 1913.  I know I've read Tom Paul comment in this discussion group that Colt had more influence than previously thought, but this is the first account I've read that doesn't even mention Crump as a designer of the course.  Interestingly, a few weeks ago when I was at Sunningdale, I asked the caddie master about the New Course and he said that it was designed by Colt who is "the one who designed Pine Valley".

The "Notes concerning the course" at the end state that there are two drive and pitch holes: eight and 14.  This must have been written before Crump discovered the green site of the current 13th and changed it to dogleg left and 14 to be a par three.

These notes also mention that the surface of every green and adjoining hazards are "in full view" from the approach.  It condemns "blind or half-blind" shots "up to the hole".  I consider two, 17, and 18 to be half-blind and certainly don't think one can see the entire green surface or all adjoining hazards.  Am I wrong about this?

Another interesting statement in the notes is that the Haskell ball has changed the "standard length" for a "good golf course" from 6,000 yards to around 6,600, and that most of the tees on the course were built with about 50 yards of room to expand ("if it becomes necessary in the future because of some far-flying ball").  I have also read recently (in some article and in Ran's updated review) that Fownes built Oakmont an long and tough as he did because he was aware of the Haskell ball.

In any event, this article is well written and has some great pictures too (of three, 10, and five).  At only six pages it's definitely worth the time to read.
"I think I have landed on something pretty fine."

TEPaul

Re:A Thought about Pine Valley - Bunkers
« Reply #8 on: June 13, 2007, 05:18:39 AM »
Peter:

As I said earlier, I do want to get into this really good subject of yours on bunkers and I will. I'm going out to Oakmont for about 36 hours and I'll do it when I get back.

However, this thread is a good example of why the search engine on this website should be better. There are a number of threads in the back pages that have discussed this subject really well and in some real depth, even the specific questions you ask. I wish I could tell you how to use the search engine but the truth is I've never used it myself. I think those threads were two years ago and more.

Mike Worth

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A Thought about Pine Valley - Bunkers
« Reply #9 on: June 13, 2007, 05:39:28 AM »
The 1915 article mentions that #14 is a 'mashie approach', as if it is a par 4.

Why is #14 not listed with the other par 3s?

TEPaul

Re:A Thought about Pine Valley - Bunkers
« Reply #10 on: June 13, 2007, 06:59:42 AM »
Andrew:

There is also in the back pages of this website some really comprehensive threads about the creation of Pine Valley and the contributions to it of Colt and Crump. Most of those threads involve me and Paul Turner and Tom MacWood.

In a general sense they seem to take on the character of me promoting the fact that Crump was the primary designer of Pine Valley and MacWood and Turner promoting the fact that Colt really was.

The truth of it is the creation of Pine Valley which took almost ten years to do (about six years during Crump's life) was much more involved and complex than just that. To do the creation story of Pine Valley justice and to do both Crump and Colt justice and what they both individually and together did there needs this creation story in its entirety, and not just pieces of it like that 1914-15 Carr article). And they aren't the only ones. There is also the matter of Hugh Alison, Flynn, Wilson, Tillinghast and Travis and most certainly Jim Govan, Crump's pro/foreman who was there with him and later every day for most of the duration and who really did come up with some architectural recommendations (14th hole).

I've been threatening to write the complete and detailed creation story of Pine Valley and I hope to do it soon. I believe I can not only do it hole by hole assigning attribution but almost feature by feature assigning attribution. I think at this point I have everything there is that's available and necessary to do that.

Truly understanding the development of the routing, the long-term design and creation process of Pine Valley takes a really good time-line and I believe I have that now.

But what it really takes is the understanding of any particular fact or article in the context of not just its individual date but how it fits into the entire duration of that creation.

That's why that Simon Carr 1914-15 article can be confusing and misleading (that Carr article was actually used in a few publications).

Carr wrote that article fairly early on in the entire creation of Pine Valley. Simon Carr, by the way, along with W.P. Smith, were apparently two of Crump's closest friends and certainly the closest to him as it involved the creation of Pine Valley and what he was doing and thinking at any particular time.

Simon Carr was a Catholic priest. Both he and Smith were really good Philadelphia golfers both winning the two major tournaments in this area before the creation of PV.

Paul Turner and to some extent Tom MacWood have used that Carr article in which he gives so much credit for the design of PV to Colt as virtual proof that Colt was the primary designer of the course.

Unfortunately, one can't look at it that way because that totally fails to take into account what Crump did with Pine Valley both in the time before Colt arrived and in the years that followed that article. Not to mention the writing about Crump's development and creation of the course by both Carr and Smith in the years that followed that article that differ markedly from that 1914 article.

Turner and MacWood seemed to me to try to explain away those differences in Carr's writing in 1914 from his later writing by implying there was some general attempt to inaccurately glorify Crump and downplay Colt since Crump died suddenly in early 1918 by suicide and there is no question at all at that point that the world of golf was shocked and saddened by that.

It is not exactly true that Crump was needlessly glorified and Colt downplayed, in my opinion. If looked at and analyzed carefully all the available material and articles and writing do show what Crump did at any particular time and what Colt did at a particular time (the one to two weeks he was at Pine Valley in May-June of 1913).

But why did that article of Carr's in 1914 seemingly give Colt so much credit for Pine Valley at that time in late 1914, early 1915?

To answer that accurately one really does need to know the rest of the entire PV creation story from its beginning to that time in 1914 (almost seven years before the course was finally finished and eighteen holes were finally put into play). One also needs to fully understand where Crump was coming from and what kind of man he was as well as what kind of architect he was (and wasn't) at that time.

In my opinion, there are a few significant facts about that time in 1914 when Carr wrote that article.

First, it was the official opening of the course to some pretty comprehensive published fanfare, even if only eleven holes were playable.

Second, there were other articles right at that time by Travis and some other local newspaper writers who virtually said the same thing as Carr's article did.

In my opinion, Crump was purposefully promoting Colt as the architect of Pine Valley at that fanfare opening for fairly obvious reasons if one is truly mindful of where Crump was at that time and who Colt was at that time. If I had PV available to me in the very same ways that Crump did and I had Bill Coore by my side as Crump had Colt in that week or two in May-June 1913 do you think I would claim when the course opened even eleven holes that I designed the course and Bill Coore didn't? No way! I'd be inclined to promote Coore myself for what should be pretty obvious reasons such as---Who the hell am I architecturally and who is he architecturally?  ;)

See what I mean?

The fact is, later, and for the remaining years of Crump's life in which he both lived and worked on that course virtually every day he simply did not follow all that Colt left there by a long shot.

One needs to understand Crump, the man too, and what he was like. That's not easy to do now. It seems he was quiet in a sort of contemplative way although very hospitable, but a man of strong opinions, albeit in a quiet way, about what he wanted there. It appears that everyone who knew him just loved the guy. He was willing to both solicit the opinions of anyone about the course even if he didn't necessarily take their advice. If he didn't he never seemed to say why----he simply didn't do various things that were recommended and quietly did what he wanted to do—eg encouraging Travis to do a reverse routing and then just not doing it.

There is no question at all that Crump ultimately was the total editor of the golf course. In the end no one made decisions that got done that Crump did not somehow approve.

Matter of fact, financially Crump essentially owned the place, he bought it himself and it was largely his own money that went into the creation and construction of the course and club. However, he did not want to be the president of the club. He did not want to be on the membership committee. He left that to others of his friends. All he seemed to want to do is design and build the golf course.

He kept working on the course, that was incomplete in his lifetime, from perhaps as early as late 1912 until early 1918, through massive agronomic problems, through the time America was in WW1 and things slowed down for a time, through constant changes and tweaks as to how the course and particularly the last four holes (12-15) would turn out while fourteen of them remained in play. In the last few months he actually worked on the course with a towel in his mouth, his teeth and gums were so bad and bleeding and suppurating.

He was obviously struggling to finalize those last four holes, to get them the way he thought they should be in a "whole-course balance" sense after basically designing and constructing himself into a box or corner of the property---he was planning numerous changes on the holes he'd already built. When some asked him when he might finish the course he jokingly retorted "NEVER". He was even directly quoted in a Philly newspaper in 1917 that when he finished the course he was going to build another one right there JUST FOR WOMEN. He'd recently bought another 400 acres apparently for that purpose.

And then one day in late January 1918, after almost six years of doing not much else, and right on the cusp of completing what would become (matter of fact what was already considered to be) the greatest golf course on earth, and apparently in his cabin at PV where he'd lived alone with his dogs for about five years, not in Merchantville where his DC reads, for whatever reasons, promoted by whatever personal demons none of us will ever fully understand, he took one of his guns, put it to his head and shot himself.

I think there is a danger of assigning too much importance for this shocking and tragic act to Pine Valley. That certainly may've had something to do with it, maybe even a lot, but there is no question at all, and even despite the fact Crump was clearly a most beloved man, he was also a very complex one, albeit perhaps quietly, for other reasons. The untimely and tragic death of his young wife should probably not be overlooked in relation to the remainder of Crump's life and his eventual fate.  

In my opinion, if two architects need to go on PV's attribution it is definitely Crump and Colt. If the entire detailed creation story is to be told many others could go on the course’s attribution.

But if only one name needs to go on PV's attribution it would be George Crump, there is just no question about that the real facts can support.

« Last Edit: June 13, 2007, 07:30:28 AM by TEPaul »

Paul_Turner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A Thought about Pine Valley - Bunkers
« Reply #11 on: June 13, 2007, 07:43:05 AM »
Peter

A  big reason why Pine Valley's bunkers looks so raw and natural is because of Colt's input.
can't get to heaven with a three chord song

wsmorrison

Re:A Thought about Pine Valley - Bunkers
« Reply #12 on: June 13, 2007, 07:53:19 AM »
Paul,

Would you mind explaining your assertion?  I am not questioning you, I would simply like to know the source for your statement.  In any case, it is unavoidable that the original site itself has much to do with the raw and natural look of the bunkers.  It was a naturally raw and sandy ground ideal for golf only after quite a bit of intervention.  They were trying to grow and maintain turf on nearly straight sand.  This turned out to be a huge mistake that Colt and other participants (though not nearly as experienced as Colt) were unable to recognize.  In fact, Colt turned to US agronomy experts a few years later for their expertise in his projects.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2007, 07:55:24 AM by Wayne Morrison »

TEPaul

Re:A Thought about Pine Valley - Bunkers
« Reply #13 on: June 13, 2007, 08:50:00 AM »
"Peter
A  big reason why Pine Valley's bunkers looks so raw and natural is because of Colt's input."

Paul:

That might very well be the case but no one could possibly prove that. On some of his hole drawings Colt did write in such instructions as "tear out sod or vegetation to form bunker" but how do you know what Pine Valley's bunkers would look like if Colt had never been there? Do you happen to know if Crump had some other idea for what they should look like. Of course you don't. Neither do I.

Furthermore, the bunker sizes and placements at Pine Valley do not really match the sizes and placements Colt drew in on his hole by hole booklet with the exception of hole #9, and somewhat hole #10. To try to claim otherwise is just not fact and furthemore you've never seen Colt's hole by hole booket with the exception of hole #17 which Finegan published in his Pine Valley history book.

Experimenting with bunker placements, sizes and shapes is something Crump did constantly with Govan in the years following Colt's departure after his one week stay there. Denying that or assuming it was of no real consequence is just not a factual and accurate assessment of the creation of Pine Valley.

In the final analysis, following Crump's death Hugh Alison probably had more architectural input on what got done on that course than Colt did when Crump was alive. At the very least 4 1/2 of the greens on that course are Alison's and one certainly can't say that of Colt.

Well, I amend that. One can certainly say it but it's just not true.  ;)
« Last Edit: June 13, 2007, 08:55:32 AM by TEPaul »

Peter Pallotta

Re:A Thought about Pine Valley - Bunkers
« Reply #14 on: June 13, 2007, 09:34:46 AM »
TE - thanks, for post #10 especially; those clear and concise history lessons are an absolute treat.

Paul - thanks. I don't know very much about Colt (or Crump) as architects and bunker-makers, and know very little about Pine Valley.  That's probably why I framed my thoughts in the way I did, i.e. I'm wondering if bunker shapes (ANY shapes) and sizes aren't 'really' the reasons why the bunkering on some courses looks so natural, and if it isn't instead what the entire site as a whole prepares the eye to see. In other words, I thinking that maybe were there's sand (and the vegetation that comes with sandy soil), bunkers will tend to look good and natural; and where there's not, they won't.    

Peter

Paul_Turner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A Thought about Pine Valley - Bunkers
« Reply #15 on: June 13, 2007, 09:47:03 AM »
Tom

I can't prove it, but it appeals to common sense given the state of the art of golf course architecture in 1913 and evidence of what Colt had already built on the heaths;  most notably St George's Hill.  I'm not aware of another architect constructing such large, raw, hazards (inland) at this time.

There are articles prior to PV where Colt spells out his approach to hazards and one stating that he would be taking these ideas to America.

Of course you could take the opinion that building this type of hazard was obvious on a sandy site and anyone would do it even in 1913.

PS

I think Colt came back to PV in 1914.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2007, 09:47:49 AM by Paul_Turner »
can't get to heaven with a three chord song

AndrewB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A Thought about Pine Valley - Bunkers
« Reply #16 on: June 13, 2007, 10:57:13 AM »
I've been threatening to write the complete and detailed creation story of Pine Valley and I hope to do it soon. I believe I can not only do it hole by hole assigning attribution but almost feature by feature assigning attribution. I think at this point I have everything there is that's available and necessary to do that.

That post was great and much appreciated (talk about most valuable contributors).  I really do hope you write the creation story of Pine Valley.  This story is clearly more complicated than what's in the history books I've read, and a detailed account such as what you describe would be fascinating.
"I think I have landed on something pretty fine."

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A Thought about Pine Valley - Bunkers
« Reply #17 on: June 13, 2007, 11:16:59 AM »
I've been threatening to write the complete and detailed creation story of Pine Valley and I hope to do it soon. I believe I can not only do it hole by hole assigning attribution but almost feature by feature assigning attribution. I think at this point I have everything there is that's available and necessary to do that.

That post was great and much appreciated (talk about most valuable contributors).  I really do hope you write the creation story of Pine Valley.  This story is clearly more complicated than what's in the history books I've read, and a detailed account such as what you describe would be fascinating.


Andrew, you read my mind. TEP, this would be a tremendous treat if you did this. You and I haven't talked about PV in a while, but this type of project would be fascinating.
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back