[Tim Liddy]

I played Pine Valley last week and could not help but notice that greens #2, #7 and #16 were similiar (and very nice), and a little bit of #4 and #18. They had gentle rolls across the green surface at various angles.  Did Maxwell construct these greens?

[SPDB1]

I too have always thought Maxwell had something to do with #2, those dips and rolls seem so characteristic. I know he did significant work to #8, and some marginal work to #9. Can't remember what else.

[TEPaul]

Tim Liddy!!--as I live and breath! Nice to see you on here.

You thought those greens were similar? My My! I sure don't see that at all. Matter of fact I can scarcely think of a golf course that has not only greens that good but all so remarkably different from one another.

Some think that #2 was a Maxwell (because of the extraordinary internal contours and rolls) but the heavy consensus now is that it's a real Crump original and probably his best--it was apparently his favorite! #4, #16 and #18 are also undeniably Crump originals although the midgreen "pimple" was finally removed from #18 by John Arthur Brown. Incidentally recent evidence shows Crump considered that #18 midgreen "pimple" as a temporary feature until he could figure out a better feature or way of screwing up shots that he said were "sliced across that green".

#7, however, may not be fully known yet as to it's ultimate architectural attribution. The course was finished off and completed as accurately as the so-called 1921 Advisory Committee could figure it to the intentions of what they knew or believed Crump would have done and wanted to do (and actually they knew a lot about that) had he lived as long as he figured he would!

The architect who made the recommendations to the 1921 Advisory Committee in that interesting effort to finish the course to Crump's intentions was C.H. (Hugh) Alison.

In my opinion, Alison did a masterful job for Pine Valley's 1921 Advisory Committee in that effort. I believe the details of #7 green are Alison.

What Maxwell did is redesign the green surface of Crump's #8 and left #9. Alison actually designed right #9 but apparently it was built to his specs by William Flynn with on site advice from George Thomas.

But I sure don't see much in the way of similarity in the greens you mentioned except that they're all putting greens. If your just thinking about them because of their unusual  internal contour I guess I could see why you'd think they might be Maxwell but those ones you mentioned (except possibly #7) are all definitely original Geo Crump.

[JSlonis]

I checked my "History of Pine Valley" book and found:

"In April of 1929, Perry Maxwell brought the original 9th green forward some 20ft., thus permitting the constructionof bunkers behind itto prohibit the overhit shot from rolling down the steep slope into the 18th hole. At this time, Maxwell also deepened and extended the bunker separating the old and new greens."

The new green on #9 was built in 1928 by William Flynn.

Also in 1929, it states that Perry Maxwell was authorized to "remove the hump in front of the 4th green, and to construct 3 bunkers at the right of the 5th green."

I have found no mention of Maxwell ever working on the 8th green.

[TEPaul]

#8 left is a bit of an interesting architectural evolution. Originally Crump's green had a very large "tongue" sticking quite far out to the right from the front of it. People have often wondered if that "tongue" originally was greenspace and it was but only for a few years possibly while Crump was still alive.

The tongue was removed on a green redesign plan by C.H Alison (I've seen his green and contour drawings) and Alison's green surface redesign recommendations were also approved by the 1921 Advisory Committee but for some reason were not done until Maxwell did the green to his own internal contour specs some years later. Basically Alison's green surface showed an inline or slight diagonal ridge from front to back and Maxwell's is what it is now, basically two side to side "steps" or down tiers.

Maxwell also did bring #9 left forward as Jamie said but all the internal contours on that green are also Maxwell.

[Tim Liddy]

Take #2 green, soften it and turn it 30 degrees and you have #7.  #16 is a bit of a combination of the two. I can easily envision a couple old Scottish guys floating out the green, drinking whiskey and trying to mimic St. A's. In fact I think I saw their ghost (still refining #7 green) as I was walking the course at after dark.

[TEPaul]

Tim:

You get Schmitty, the caddie to go out there with you in the evening and read you some of his individual hole poetry complete with references to whoever may have lived there about 5,000 years ago and you'll do more than THINK you see ghosts.

But #7 is basically one long meandering center swale and #2 is really two side by side swales formed by the right center inline front to back low ridge contour and then pick up the back of #7 and tilt the whole thing forward about x degrees and turn it straight ahead and add a very dramatic shoulder on the back right and sort of crest the back of the green and maybe then there would start to be noticeable similarities. Anyway you're in the business and you know how to pick up things like that but few others ever would, I'm sure.

But who the hell really knows at this point? If Alison actually did redo Crump's original green on #7 (which I'm certain he did) which seems to have been quite different than what's there now (this is all in Alison's text by the way), and Alison was trying to basically design in the spirit of what Crump may have wanted had he lived it may mean that Alison was sort of trying to "stay in character" with Crump's other greens.

If he was actually trying to do that he very well may have picked out some contours on some of Crump's other greens and used them in other ways by flipping them around in other patterns and such. If I was trying to stay in character with another architect and I was redoing another green that's what I would do.

Matter of fact, we may do exactly that on one green at GMGC within the next week to ten days just to try to stay in character with Perry Maxwell.

[archie struthers]

TEPaul

I'd love to know the green at Gulph Mills you are alluding to , and what you envision, also I called the Hagley Museum re:
Tavistock as J. Slonis query regarding Findley tweaked my interest. Although weaned at Woodcrest and PV I have spent a lot of time at Tavistock and think they could do some neat stuff with tees there!!

[TEPaul]

Archie:

We're about to redo the 7th green at GMGC. It's was a Maxwell redesign but frankly he sort of screwed up the hole's concept a bit down on the green-end and then some other architects eventually screwed up Perry's green. I really believe he was going for what I call a "conceptual copy" of ANGC's #13 which he'd been watching getting tweaked while he was at ANGC redoing #7!

So we're going to try to finish off his concept copy about 65 years later. It won't be recognizable really but hopefully the same "go/no go" concept with the quarry sort of mimicing Rae's Creek.

Our #8 green and green-end bunker scheme I thought was a basically a copy or concept copy of ANGC's #7 by Maxwell but I found out this year that he did ours a couple of years before ANGC's #7 so I guess you can say ANGC's #7 is a concept copy of our #8.

[archie]

TEPaul

Probably better served on the Tavistock thread but it is so important to look at the flow and feel of the golf corse as it once existed or was conceptualized in doing renovation. At Greate Bay (Willie Park 1923) the redesign work of Ron Garl in the early 1980's was so out of character, even from the homogenized Park/George Fazio (1973) golf course that existed, that two holes are still begging for the bulldozer.

The holes in their own right are OK but bore little or no resemblance to anything that preceeded them. Suffice it to say that I would think it mandatory for anyone renovating a golf course in part to at least a crash course in the history of the property. Any new holes, in a job well done, would be hard to identify without prior knowledge of the course!!!!

[Mike_Cirba]

Archie;

Can I drive?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Liddy,

I hate to agree with TEPaul, but I don't see # 2 as being anywhere near similar to #7 and # 16.

The contouring is so drastic in comparison to the other two.

And to use another TEPaul expression, I find that the # 2 green could be described as having greens within a green, whereas the other two are basically one surface, one green with some gentle contouring.

But, that's just my opinion, Tom Paul could still be wrong !  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I'm not sure I would call the contours on #16 all that gentle altough the front of the green might feel that way given the speeds of the greens and compared to some of the other green contours on other holes. Certainly the back half of #16 is not gentle, matter of fact I don't remember ever seeing a pin on the back half of #16!

But one of the reasons the contours on #16 might appear more gentle is the green is basically enormous, the biggest green at Pine Valley!

[redanman]

Tim

Good to see you here.

Gotta join in the old guy chorus here and beg to differ.  #2 at Pine Valley  is extremely severe with several interesting little knobs and ridges on the periphery.   The center of the green has a lot going on , but to me the great details of that green are in the marginal positions such as rear center (fantastic!) and mid far right.   Even without the difference in severity I see #7 quite differently, but you also may be looking at these form a differnet perspective that I don't have (As a constructor).  #2 never struck me as much Maxwell as left #9 is so obviously so (Dont we all wish all the trees behind this green die during this terrible droought?)

One thing that I have always enjoyed at the Valley is trying to remember the contours of the greens as I plan an approach.  And since PV is so much more forgiving!?! off hte tee, silly me  has a shot from the fairway more often and those great contours really make me think.

16 and 7 have some more in the way of similar degrees of contours, but the set up the approach to 16 is ground and #7 is all air so they are effectively night and day, I think, even if we agree that they are similar (Which I don't really).

[Tim Liddy]

I knew you guys would gang up on me. They don't play the same and they have their own intricate identity. But I think if you diagram them out for yourself you will see a general pattern (philosphy) to their design. By the way, they are great greens and I agree they are important (and add much to the enjoyability) to visualize during your approach shot (just like St. A's).

[archie struthers]

Regarding the greens at the Valley, I don't have much empirical evidence as to who di what but certainly the three large ridges that run thru #2 both N/S & E/W are what dictates the severity of that particular green. #16 has another large ridge running thru the back middle which is in character with the design on #2. In many ways the whole tenor of the back nine greens is softer and more subtle (oops, forgot #15)  but I'd have a hard time thinking that the greens aren't of similar genesis!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim & Archie,

I think the greens are different, especially in relationship to their function, in the context of the approach into each green.

# 16 was designed to receive two types of shots, one aerial and one along the ground, hence the rising nature of the rear portion of the green and its large size.  Water, a significant hazard also borders the green perhaps influencing its size.

# 2 and # 7 can never receive a shot along the ground, and are designed for an aerial approach.

On # 2, at 367 yards, perhaps the challenge was meant to be the green, whereas # 7 at 585, the green was meant to be a form of relief from the rigors of reaching it.

Just a theory.

[archie struthers]

Pat, as usual I agree with you as to the greens! Crump in his brilliance devised a golf course whose greens fit the hole like no other I have seen, and reflect what shot fit that particular hole best. On two and particularly seven you have to hit a high soft shot while on sixteen its best to skid one in!

My point was that the greens all have the same style, they are of the same genre, even if they are distinctively different in what shot works best. My point would be that they all look like they were built by the same artist, who mixed some curveballs into the mix.

I
        

[Patrick_Mucci]

Archie,

Thanks.

Does the genius of Crump and his creation, Pine Valley equate to little or no changes to the architecture, the ultimate test, the test of time ?

[TEPaul]

It's important to note that in it's 90 years of existence PVGC has been lead by basically six men only to date!

As far as architectural changes, since the completion of PVGC which tragically George Crump did not live to see the finishing touches of the course has seen remarkably few architectural changes.

Essentially that has not happened by accident, the club basically venerates Crump and his creation--and that's what is most notable compared to almost every other golf club.

To finish the golf course (which Crump did live to complete the design of) the 1921 Advisory Committee was formed and that committee put the finishing touches on the course and basically other than right green on #8 and some minor tee and bunker work the golf course is essentially the same as the 1921 Advisory committee's final report!

It's also important to note the effort that the 1921 Advisory committee went to in their dedication to complete the finishing touches of the golf course as they understood Geo Crump would have done it had he lived!

[Henry_W]

Is it possible to purchase a copy of James Finegan's club history of Pine Valley?

[archie struthers]

Pat,

 yes, i think the ultimate compliment to Crumps' work of gnius at Pine Valley is that all the equipment advances have had little or no impact on the shots you have to play at the Valley to be effective. Whereas todays long hitting player would likely two-iron his way around the Valley it has not changes the nature of the second shot , just the club used to hit it!

The greens, as we have often discussed, are as dfficult as the the powers that be decide as at the Valley, speed kills!

[GPO]

As Archie knows, anyone who has been lucky enough to play in a club event at PV has experienced hole locations and green speeds that are much more difficult than the course setup for a regular day's play.  for instance, there are pin positions on the backs of the 5th, 15th and back left at 16 that are insane.  

Next time anyone is there, try two-putting front to back on 16.

By the way archie, how's your buddy dougie?

GPO

[archie s]

Doulas is fine, and is using the long putter, whih has helped him immensely.


Back to the Valley. i keep trning it over and over in my ind that the very best players in Philly,mostly pros, couldn't go low, even for one of two rounds. My caddy friends tell me that it wasn't set up really super hard, and was like your typical Crump Cup Qualifier, certainly no harder.

Just more poroof that it is the greatest home court advantage in golf!

[GPO]

Am i to believe that dougie gave up the pipe for a long putter?

I belive that Pine Valley could be set up in such a way that it would be virtually impossible for even the best players in the world to finish.  I have heard the stories of all the 5, 6, 7, and more putts on the third green the year after louie shot 64 in the crump.  i'm sure that there are pins on half of the greens comparable to that one.

Tell dougie i'll see him in the fall.  and you at the floyd.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()