[Jim Colton]

Seriously, that land of Trump's in Scotland looks awesome. I doubt they will get to use the best land and I still think he has a ways to go for permitting and financing but that land is really attractive:

http://www.trumpgolfscotland.com/gallery/gallery.asp

Who knows what is in China for land?

Surely, Trump already believes this (and all his courses for that matter) are superior to PV.

[JESII]

Pat,

Even with the back tees, the water is not a daunting feature on either 5, 14 or 15 especially to the golfers that should be playing from those tees.  From the fairway, water is only really a factor on 16.  From the rough or into the wind, the water fronting 18 green could be a factor from the back tee.

Shinnecock Hills doesn't need water at all.

Jim,

Those greens are very special and are a joy to study and to play.  The greens at Shinnecock Hills are being returned to their former dimensions and this will be a very significant improvement.  Imagine if the greens at Pine Valley all became circles or slight ovals with the green surface retracted from falloffs and bunkers.  It would make a huge difference as it does at Shinnecock.  Thankfully they are being restored to as close to what they were as possible given some evolutionary factors.

I'll avoid the overall comparisons of PV and SH, but will add two things to your post above...the water is absolutely in play on #14 at PV. 4 paces short of the front edge all the way across and 207 to the edge from the back, about 160 to the edge from the front...it's in play for everyone.

Shinnecock, as you know, is a very special place to me, but their greens are in no way comparable to Pine Valley's greens. Remember, I am avoiding the overall comparison, and just speaking of the green surfaces and Shinnecock could do all the recapturing in the world and it couldn't find greens like the first three at PV...

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

Well, yes, the water is in play on the 14th green as it is so close to the front of the green.  However, would you ever go anywhere near a front pin or would one simply go for the center of the green, get your 2-putt and move on to 15?  That green is a pretty big target (I'm sure it looks smaller in competition) and isn't so diabolical.

As to the green surfaces at Pine Valley.  Quite frankly there is a collection of some of the greatest green surfaces in the world there.  Yet some greens rely on the entire green complex and not just the green surfaces themselves.  The first hole is a magnificent green complex, but the green itself is not as excellent as others on the course.  But there are few green surfaces anywhere that compare to the collection of outstanding green surfaces such as numbers 2,3,5,7,8,9 and 10 and to a lesser extent greens on 13,15,16 and 17.  It is hard to argue that the green surfaces on holes 1,4,6,11,12,14 and even 18 are of themselves world-class green surfaces.

Now I'm not at all saying that the green surfaces at Shinnecock Hills are of the same caliber as those of Pine Valley.  I didn't mean to imply this.  I just was stating that if the greens at Pine Valley shrunk as much as they did at Shinnecock Hills, there would be a change in perception of the green surfaces and how they worked in a strategic sense and of course in terms of putting demands.  Though they still would clearly be superior than those of Shinnecock Hills.

I know that Shinnecock is very special to you and your family.  I appreciate your comments and perspective.  Maybe it is far-fetched to think that an existing course can surpass Pine Valley, but if one could---it would be Shinnecock Hills as it probably is a more complete a test and is more enjoyable on a daily basis for a much larger spectrum of golfers.  Does its green surfaces compare?  No.  Flynn just didn't design nearly that large a number of bold greens on a single course.  

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

Believe me, the water is most certainly in play on #14---always has been and much more so now with the new back tee.

It's not as if you have to miss a shot badly to get into the pond in front (or even in the rear).

That shot down to that green is pretty far down hill so most players are clubbing down some for that and if there is wind that tee shot is one of the most complex on the course to figure out wind-wise.

It's pretty daunting to realize you can basically only hit the green or miss it just right to make a score on that hole. Anywhere else and you're looking at a potentially high number.

I used to think that green surface was sort of weak compared to the others on the course but I don't anymore. The entire right side of that green is one of the best diagonals imaginable without really looking like it. If you play a bit safe by taking a bit more club and push it just a little your tee shot will inevitably fly right over that diagonal right side.

And I didn't appreciate before how good the right to left tilt all along that right side green surface is which is pretty interesting in that the only place you can miss a tee shot with any kind of impunity is right---eg that tilt just makes the recovery from the right side all the more difficult, particularly if your tee shot went deeper along the right side.

[wsmorrison]

Ok.  If you and Sully think so, I do believe.

[TEPaul]

Not only are the actual green surfaces of PV all some of the best I've ever seen but the difficulty of recoverying from around most any of them is about as potentially difficult as any golf course I've ever seen.

I realize that difficulty is not necessarlly synonymous with great golf or great architecture but in Crump's mind it probably was and I think plenty of others over the years have agreed with him on that.

This notion that PV does not accomodate high handicappers and is consequently not an "ideal" or democratic golf course and golf architecture for that reason is and always has been total bullshit in my opinion.

The course and the entire idea of it was created to be a severe and demanding test of golf and for that reason, amongst other reasons, the course established its reputation for architectural excellence which I feel is completely deserved.

Obviously, over the years the world of golf agreed with that and that's why PV has been the #1 course in America or the world longer than any other.

Not to mention, the sort of otherworldly and unique look of the entire golf course.

My suggestion, and my hope, is if the club restores the sand playability to the way it always was and gets the trees out of all Crump's bunkers and their shot angles, I just don't see another golf course any time soon dislodging Pine Valley from the #1 spot in the country or the world. I think those two items are about the only possible ones that PV could be critiziced for and consequently be discounted, architecturally, in any way.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Very simple...NO..having just returned from playing in the Crump...it is as far ahead of anywhere else as it has ever been.
They continue to improve the course in terms of conditioning and the moving of tee boxes...mainly for the better....and the aura around the place is simply awesome...if Pine Valley did not exist, it is how I would want heaven to look.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tommy,

Sorry, but I just don't think 11 (only meant as a temporary hole to Crump) and 14 can be considered excellent holes; most certainly not in the context of the other 16.

 

Wayne I think you are correct about #11.  It isn't very long. The tee shot is average although hitting it a little left to right is a good idea, but it is not necessary. The shot into the green is one of the most benign on the course.
The green, however does have a pretty good slope from back to front so birdie is no slam dunk.  It may be the easiest par on the course, however. On most other courses, though, the hole still would stand out.

[wsmorrison]

The course was designed to be an exacting test of golf for the very best players.  It is what it was meant to be.  However, in the minds of some, that is not an ideal design.  That isn't bullshit, it is the truth and one that I find acceptable.  I may not completely agree with it, though I can easily understand that a #1 course means different things for different people.  Some consider the ability of a golf course to be enjoyable for all golfers and a complete test for the very best golfers to be their ideal course.  These people would clearly not accept Pine Valley or Oakmont as their #1.  Nothing wrong with that, it is a big world

The course is architecturally excellent, clearly among the very best in the world if not the very best.  The course is unique in look and feel.  This contributes mightily to its position.  But the groomed sand is not unique nor fitting.  I said earlier that the grooming of the sandy waste (and lost vegetation) and the proliferation of trees in bunkers and sandy waste areas does bring it down a bit.  Enough to lose its #1 spot?  Perhaps so.  Until they do something about it, I can see a course like Shinnecock overtake it.  If these issues were corrected, I think few would dispute that Pine Valley is #1.  They haven't yet...though I wish they would do so and immediately on the 12th hole.

However much we love everything about Pine Valley, everything about Pine Valley is not the greatest.  Every green is not one of the 18 greatest green surfaces in the world, a few are rather below superior.  Every bunker is not the greatest (the circular bunker on 11 for instance is plain bad) and every tee is not the greatest (new tees on 12 and 14 for instance).  It is not a family club so some would find this less than ideal.  It is not a club where it is easy to show up and get a game with members.  Some would find this less than ideal.  

Yet, all in all, it is the most special place in American golf and it will forever remain that way.  We treasure Pine Valley dearly and deservedly so.

[JSlonis]

Here is a photo of #12.  It is located in the bottom right corner.

[TEPaul]

"The course was designed to be an exacting test of golf for the very best players.  It is what it was meant to be.  However, in the minds of some, that is not an ideal design.  That isn't bullshit, it is the truth and one that I find acceptable.  I may not completely agree with it, though I can easily understand that a #1 course means different things for different people.  Some consider the ability of a golf course to be enjoyable for all golfers and a complete test for the very best golfers to be their ideal course.  These people would clearly not accept Pine Valley or Oakmont as their #1.  Nothing wrong with that, it is a big world.  


Wayne:

That's all true but my point is I sure do hope that Pine Valley NEVER does ANYTHING to make that golf course more accomodating to high handicappers than it ever has been or was intended by Crump to be for the purpose of satisfying the opinions of SOME that that is what makes for an "ideal" golf course and "ideal" architecture and consequently is perhaps some PREREQUISITE for a golf course be considered as #1 in the country or the world or even the best architecture in the country or the world.

[A.G._Crockett]

Would a factor be that the pieces of ground that would be possible sites for a course of that caliber are less and less available, either due to previous construction or acquisition costs?  Plus, as mentioned here many times, environmental regulations now are a limit that neither SH nor PV faced.

It would seem to me that those two factors alone would make it unlikely that a new course could overtake PV; too much of a headstart for the classics.

[wsmorrison]

"Wayne:

That's all true but my point is I sure do hope that Pine Valley NEVER does ANYTHING to make that golf course more accomodating to high handicappers than it ever has been or was intended by Crump to be for the purpose of satisfying the opinions of SOME that that is what makes for an "ideal" golf course and "ideal" architecture and consequently is perhaps some PREREQUISITE for a golf course be considered as #1 in the country or the world or even the best architecture in the country or the world."

Ahh...now I see what you meant.  Sorry.  Yes, I totally agree and would not want anything to change the original intent or design.  I believe they took a misstep in that direction with the grooming of all the sand areas.  I would like to see that step reversed.

[Jerry Kluger]

Allow me to expand the question - how do you think PV will be viewed 50 years from now?  I ask this question because many people say that PV should not be compared to Sand Hills because of when they were built.  But what if Sand Hills was nearly 75 years old and PV was around 150 years old - would we still take their age into consideration or would we judge them on an equal basis - would PV still be viewed as better than SH?  To me both courses represent the best, and perhaps genius, in the use of outstanding pieces of property in designing a golf course.  But if we take the date of construction out of the equation which one comes out on top?

[Paul_Turner]

PV is pretty entrenched at #1 I can't imagine it being demoted,  or if it is,  only for a small time.  Variety is PV's trump card.

Can't agree with this criticism of 11 (or 14).  11th fairway has different terrain from the rest with the ridge coming in from the right.  And I remember a super green, with plenty of contour.  

Crump may have wanted to move the 11th green site but he never saw Alison's current green so couldn't have an opinion on it.

[wsmorrison]

In comparing Sand Hills and Pine Valley, I would never change my mind about Pine Valley having superior architecture because it has a lot more architecture in it.  All but one green site at Sand Hills is completely natural as are many of the sandy waste areas and blowouts.  Of course there was a lot of genius at work to find the sites, create a routing and course flow and the like.  It took a significant amount of work; but not quite the same process as at Pine Valley.  The Pine Valley golf course literally had to be built to a much greater degree.  While there is a lot of natural features at work, there is much more architecture by definition.

[wsmorrison]

"Crump may have wanted to move the 11th green site but he never saw Alison's current green so couldn't have an opinion on it."

Are you certain Alison's green was built as planned?  Is it possible that this is Crump's green?  The pre-exisiting left greenside bunker is as it was before Alison.  The single right front corner greenside bunker planned by Alison was not built...or it was replaced with an entirely different bunker complex shortly afterwards as it does not appear that way in early aerials.  Maybe the green wasn't redone according to the plan.  What was behind the left greenside bunker before Alison?  Is the mound he intended present?  I cannot quite recall, but I think there might be a mound, there certainly is a gentle then increasingly steeper upslope towards 12 tee.

Crump considered the 11th the weakest on the course according to W.P. Smith.  Maybe the Alison green was built.  In that case Crump's description no longer applies.  In any case, I think the hole is, along with 14, the weakest ones on the course.

[Ted Kramer]

I know that PV is generally considered to be the #1 course in the world and I have been lucky enough to play Shinnecock Hills once. If given the choice between a return trip to Shinnecock or a round at PV, I'd choose a 2nd round at Shinnecock.

The joy of a 2nd round, getting a chance to play those holes again, with the little bit of knowledge that I gained from my first time around would be so much fun . . .

I'd love to see/play PV. But having grown up LI, Shinnecock is simply enchanting. . . .I felt like a King during my round out there, I've never enjoyed any outdoor space more than I did the 18 holes at Shinnecock.

-Ted

[Jerry Kluger]

Wayne: How are you defining architecture - is that the standard which is being used in judging PV? Are you saying it is better simply because of the type of property on which it was built? Or should it be judged based upon the end product - the quality of the holes as a whole.  Will you always judge SH below PV because the property was, shall we say, more receptive to a golf course with a minimal amount of construction.  But others might argue that the trees and the water gave an advantage to PV since the types of natural features at SH are not nearly as great.

[wsmorrison]

Jerry,

I think of architecture as anything man-made.  The Sand Hills site was much more conducive to golf design than Pine Valley's site.  The property for Pine Valley had to be overcome while the property at Sand Hills was inviting.

Tom or others may correct me, but I think the only trees that are really strategic (disregarding wayward shots) are on holes 11 (left) and 13 (right).  The other trees are, or should be, on the periphery and frame the entire hole.  The pines aren't especially good looking trees in any case.

I am saying that a lot more work was required to build Pine Valley while a lot of work was done to find Sand Hills.  There are differences in the two approaches. As for water, it is not so greatly used, there are hundreds of courses with better water features.  The water is there because it is necessary.  The lake to the right of 16 green and fronting 15 tee was man-made.  It doesn't appear on any survey maps of the property.  It was probably wetlands, but not a formal stream or pond and therefore adds to the quantity of architecture.

[Jerry Kluger]

Wayne:

I will not challenge your "man-made" definition by bringing up Shadow Creek, but would your admiration for PV be as great if it were built today - and be honest now, what if Tom Fazio was the architect?  Mind you, I agree that PV is the work of genius and is to me the most signifcant course in US history, but I do think that perhaps we give too much credit for when how it was built.

[ed_getka]

Thanks guys for one of the most enlightening discussions of PV I have read here.
   I personally wouldn't want the course modified to accomodate high handicappers, I was just wondering if an 11 can manage to get around the place and still want to go to the first tee at the end of the day. Mike Sweeney seems to indicate that it is very possible.
   If anyone can post one of those aerials of #5 and 14 that would be greatly appreciated.

[Rich Goodale]

We all forget that PV was in fact "surpassed" in the rankings by Pebble Beach a few years ago until the hounds of the establishment bayed loud and long enough to put the raters in their places and bring them to their senses.

It is a shame that PV will probably never be tested by a competition at the highest level, as PB and Shinneock and Muirfield have been, nor be more available for outside play.  It will always be a hidden and mysterious gem, which is why it will remain at #1, although surely not forever.

[ed_getka]

Michael,
    You clearly love the course, what are your favorite attributes of the course or certain holes?
     If you were going to change one thing on the course what would it be? At least 2 people brought up a bunker on #11, what do you think of that?

[Paul_Turner]

"Crump may have wanted to move the 11th green site but he never saw Alison's current green so couldn't have an opinion on it."

Are you certain Alison's green was built as planned?  Is it possible that this is Crump's green?  The pre-exisiting left greenside bunker is as it was before Alison.  The single right front corner greenside bunker planned by Alison was not built...or it was replaced with an entirely different bunker complex shortly afterwards as it does not appear that way in early aerials.  Maybe the green wasn't redone according to the plan.  What was behind the left greenside bunker before Alison?  Is the mound he intended present?  I cannot quite recall, but I think there might be a mound, there certainly is a gentle then increasingly steeper upslope towards 12 tee.

Crump considered the 11th the weakest on the course according to W.P. Smith.  Maybe the Alison green was built.  In that case Crump's description no longer applies.  In any case, I think the hole is, along with 14, the weakest ones on the course.

Wayne

I don't have the plans with me.  Tom Paul would be able to confirm but I'm pretty certain Alison's green was built.  I remember comparing Alison's plan with the yardage chart and the contours are right.  

Crump's 11th green had an abrupt tier in it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()