[Kalen Braley]

Tom P,

Thanks for the detailed description of events as they occured at PV.  

Would you also say that Crump was the main driving force who got the course put in the ground? (The parts while he was still alive that is) And I don't mean from being the perpective of being the man who wrote the checks to pay the people who got the course in the ground.  I'm more just curious to know in light of the other thread where many asserted that an architect is one who not only can route a hole, but have the knowledge and wherewithal to translate those ideas into Mother Earth and not rely on the landscapers, shapers, irrigators, etc otherwise to know how to do it..  

[TEPaul]

"Would you also say that Crump was the main driving force who got the course put in the ground?"

Kalen:

There's no question about it---none.

Look, I sort of hate to say this and when I do I really want it to come across like I think it really was with George Crump.

There is no question at all that he was a kind of man that for whatever reasons everyone just seemed to love. He was apparently fairly quiet but with a wonderful sense of humor, sometimes very self deprecating but he was also apparently very driven in a lot of the things he did. Golf was definitely one of them and certainly architecture and the creation of Pine Valley was another one---his final mission, as it were, perhaps.

For any of us or even any of his legions of friends he probably was not, at the point he began to create Pine Valley, what anyone would call a normal man with a normal life.

His young wife had died suddenly and tragically and he had no family of his own--no children. He basically moved out of his impressive residence in Merchantville (installed his mother in the house) and moved to Pine Valley full-time---first in a tent and then in his small cabin by the 5th hole.

He lived alone with his hunting dogs and with the birds and animals and the nature of the place. Eventually his foreman and his family moved to Pine Valley.

The two of them worked together on the course practically every day. There was a ton of things to do, that's for sure.

He solicited opinions from anyone and if he decided not to do something they recommended he never really told them about it or why---he just did his own thing.

No one will ever really know what possessed Crump in those five years he dedicated his life and his money to creating Pine Valley. Basically he owned the place but he didn't even want to be the president of it or to involve himself with membership or whatever. He left that to others of his friends.

I would just have to think that even his friends must have been somewhat surprised by all this.

I don't think Crump ever thought of himself as something of a legend in the making in the world of architecture---he was just fixated every day on the little things of doing it.

In the beginning he had to have been a rank amateur in architecture but when one puts into a golf course everything he has day after day for five years obviously if there's any raw talent there it's going to come out and get in the ground.

He did a whole lot more than just write checks.

And when this highly unusual saga ended the way it did one night in January 1918 everyone was just so stunned. Basically the nuts and bolts, the heart and soul of the whole thing was gone--just like that. The whole project basically came to a halt for almost two years before the club figured out how to go on.

There's a very good article on here in the "In My Opinion" section by Tom MacWood called something like "George Crump, the making of a legend".

You should read it---it captures a lot of what I think is the essence of the guy and how Pine Valley came to be.

[Kalen Braley]

Thank Tom,

Some very good insight to the man and his lifes situation.  I'll have a read of Tom Macs article...

[Tom_Doak]

I'm shocked that while others on this thread argued Wayne's definition of "architecture" (as I would), no one questioned the contention that Shinnecock required more "architecture" than Pine Valley.  Both are great pieces of land by most measure, but my impression is that Pine Valley was WAY harder and more complicated to build.

If you think through the courses rated "10" on the Doak scale, Pinehurst No. 2 and Muirfield were probably the dullest pieces of ground in the bunch, and National Golf Links the most severe.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

Interesting what you just said about Shinnecock and man-made architecture vs Pine Valley and man-made architecture.

First of all, Flynn's mission at Shinnecock was a little unusual in the world of new construction architecture in that he was looking at a whole lot of possibilities for reasons that aren't very common with other new or new construction courses.

In other words, he was looking for a great course while trying to figure out what to use and reuse and what new to build to always keep some kind of course in play at all times for the club when he was designing and building.

That right there was about the polar opposite of Crump who the club was beginning to wonder if he'd ever get finished and get the whole course in play.

But from my perspective, the land of Shinnecock was pretty much of a snap for Flynn compared to the land and topography of what Crump was originally working with (the original 186 acres).

Also, by 1929 William Flynn, in our opinion, was one of the most clever and intuitive "free flowing" architects in the business while Crump was starting out as a rank amateur trying to put a completely perconceived layout in balance and variety throughout on a piece of property not readally willing to receive it naturally.

It would be absolutely eternally fascinating, I would think, to actually go right through the course of Pine Valley and try to determine hole by hole just what Crump et al actually did "make" architecturally down there (in the context of how Wayne and I and apparently you define architecture (eg man-made)).

I believe I could actually do that with Pine Valley but the maddening thing is, today, ninety plus years later, the topographical contour lines, pre-construction, of those two available original topo maps are so damn faint one can hardly make them out.

Isn't that typical with history and historical analysis though?  

[Lloyd_Cole]

Ok...

I think I have found something to bridge the abyss between camps.

Wayne states -  (given that the use of natural features is a talent but not by definition, architecture)

Are we not here arguing as to whether or not zero is a number? The minimalists say yea, the others say nay...

kmourn - Is it your experience that all your writing had improved by refinement? Have you not once stumbled upon something and expressed it perfectly first draft? An exception to prove your rule?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Wouldn't you also say that the architect's missions and the underlying properties were vastly different.

SH was an existing golf course.

PV was raw land.

SH was a fully functioning facility.

PV was a roll of the dice.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Not to pick on Wayne, but I just read a comment of his which I found interesting.    

"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."

I am not one who subscribes to the belief that "discovered" architecture is any less valid/good/desirable then "built" architecture.  So far as I can tell, Sand Hills is the only course to come along in many a year which can stand shoulder to shoulderish with Pine Valley in terms of quality and admiration.  For those that do agree with Wayne, could you explain your position of why "natural" architecture is not as good as "built" architecture?

Sean,

I'd like to defend and contest Wayne's position .... at the same time.  

He's been drinking far too much of that "Philadelphia" water lately.

In the ultimate, it's the product that determines merit, not the methodology that produced it.

However, having said that I believe the genius and redeeming quality of an architect is his ability to maximize what's in the land.

I think that's where inherent talent lies.

Those that have the inate ability to see the land and visualize a hole would seem to be more talented than those who see the land and need to amend the land in order to produce a hole.

I find PV and SH to be two completely different golf courses, in almost every aspect, save for the number of holes.

PV seems to possess far more continuity amongst its holes, whereas, SH seems more of a collection of individual holes.

It's my belief that the "constellation routing" serves to support my theory on the individual-collective nature of the golf course.

PV and SH are wildly different in most aspects of their creation.

PV had a novice design the golf course.
SH had two highly skilled architects.

PV's land was a forest, albeit on sandy soil
SH is devoid of trees.

PV had a novice as a developer
SH had a skilled veteran

PV had limited land
SH had unlimited land, which wasn't enough.

PV has a continuity from green to tee
SH is disjointed from green to tee.

PV had to be created within limited confines
SH had no such constraints

PV is a year round golf course
SH is seasonal

PV was designed for "Championship" golfers
SH was designed for everyone

PV is devoid of wind
SH thrives on wind

Both creations influenced architecture that would follow them.

Both retain lofty positions in the world of golf and GCA.

Forgetting about the relative remoteness of both sites at the time of their inception, if you could belong to one, as your nearby home course, which one would you pick ?  And WHY ?

Certainly, you can't go wrong with either pick, but, having your choice, which one would you choose to play every day, and why ?

These are proclaimed to be the TWO BEST GOLF COURSES IN AMERICA, CLASSIC AND MODERN.

Yet, If I had the luxury to pick ANY golf course to be my home course, my course to play every day, I wouldn't pick either one.  I find them to be too rigorous for daily play.
I'd pick any one of dozens of courses ahead of them.

And, my decision isn't based on the method of design and construction, it's based on the enjoyment of the challenge.

This doesn't diminish either courses' value, it only identifies my preference for daily play.

I have to add the caveat that I was at a physical disadvantage when I spent a few days playing SH, so my assessment might be improperly weighted, but, in thinking about it, even in tip-top condition, I believe that my assessment is on the mark.[/color]

[Ken Moum]

kmoum - Is it your experience that all your writing had improved by refinement? Have you not once stumbled upon something and expressed it perfectly first draft? An exception to prove your rule?

I'm not aware of anything I've done that couldn't have been improved with more time. Nothing is ever perfect, IMHO.

If you are talking about thing like the description you posted here of making your first album, or something like Catch 22, by Joseph Heller, I think those are a distillation of thoughts over time, and often take a long time to produce.

Because I have had a weekly deadline for most of the last 33 years, I don't often get a lot of time to reflect on what I would have done differently, but I do sometimes go back to to look something up, and think, "Why did I do that."

Of course, I also sometimes think, "That was nicely done, I wonder where it came from."

Ken

[TEPaul]

"Are we not here arguing as to whether or not zero is a number? The minimalists say yea, the others say nay..."

Lloyd:


I don't think arguing whether zero is a number is necessary in golf architecture when one plugs in two unique aspects of golf course architecture as an art form compared to most other art forms.

1. Golf architecture as an art form serves an interactive purpose---eg golf.

2. Golf architecture as an art form must always consider the interactive forces of Nature.

Those two things are very different from most other art forms that are inherently not interactive or are essentially static and are mostly aesthetic.

Behr probably said this best when he mentioned that the painting artist's medium is paint and he may become its master, but the medium of the golf architecture is the earth and he can never be its master as that inherently will always be the realm of Nature and the forces of Nature.

For these reasons the use of existing land features compared to man-made features makes the two sort of inherently merge together somewhat in this particular interactive art form.

[wsmorrison]

Pat Mucci,

Well stated.  As for the notion of which course would be a more enriching daily course, I don't think either one but for different reasons.   Frankly, Sand Hills it is far too remote to be anyone's daily course.   But these courses were unlikely to be anyone's single course, unless of course you lived in or near Mullen, NE.  I think all of the founding members of Pine Valley belonged to multiple clubs and I'm pretty sure that's almost universally how it is today.  Very few outside of Pine Valley Borough residents only belong to Pine Valley.  So, it is probably not a point worth arguing.  However, if forced to choose, as I think Pine Valley the one of the three best clubs in America and since I only live about 20 miles away, I'll take Pine Valley.

"I'm shocked that while others on this thread argued Wayne's definition of "architecture" (as I would), no one questioned the contention that Shinnecock required more "architecture" than Pine Valley."  

Tom P,

I read that sentence as Tom Doak not agreeing with our definition of what is architecture.  I don't remember the contention that Shinnecock required more architecture than Pine Valley but it does bring up some interesting points to discuss.

Consider the amount of architecture Flynn used on the flat portions of Shinnecock Hills versus the more topographic portions.  There were a lot more bunkers, mounds and ground/aerial options on 7 of 10 flat holes.  The hillier portions of the ground had less hazards (one example of architecture) and relied on the natural contours to a greater degree with half of the 8 holes requiring aerial approaches.  Look at an aerial of Shinnecock Hills.  The areas of more architectural features is clearly in the flatter regions.  With great ground, you don't need as much architecture and Flynn showed outstanding restraint.

But let me caution people, for great naturalist architects, it isn't always apparent what is natural and what is architectural and made to look natural.  Flynn did an excellent job in making the excessive bunkering and undulating sandy waste areas in the flat portions look natural.  The club has done an excellent job of maintaining the bunkers but they were originally less formal in appearance with more vegetation and less distinct margins.  The 14th hole at Shinnecock Hills is a good example.  While it looks as though the hole was simply laid out on the natural ground, a ridge was removed short of the green that exposed the greensite in its natural setting.  It looks completely natural but it is not.  Architecture was involved.

An even better example is the Cascades golf course.  In an absolutely beautiful setting, to many observers (even those that have seen more than 1000 courses) it appears that Flynn utilized the ground in a manner in harmony with the natural features.  If you read the engineer's report about the amount of architecture and construction involved, you'd be amazed.  300 yard ridges were blasted away, stream beds moved 100s of yards, entire green sites were blasted clear of rocks and fill used elsewhere to build up features.  Yet this was done in a naturalistic style.  This is how I differentiate between minimalism, which overwhelmingly uses the natural features (with Sand Hills as a leading example), from naturalism, which uses the natural features as much as possible but utilizes a lot of architecture but makes it look natural.  Then there is a kind of architecture that looks overtly man-made.  This appeals less to me than minimalism and naturalism even if the playability is outstanding.  

[TEPaul]

"PV has a continuity from green to tee
SH is disjointed from green to tee."

Pat:

I liked and agreed with most everything you said in that long "green" post.

But I don't agree with the remark quoted above.

The fact is both PV AND SH are remarkably close coupled from green to next tee. However, the available land at SH was so big compared to the original available land at PV it basically allowed C&C to go off in almost any direction on the next hole from the previous hole where Crump did not have that luxury at PV.

Despite that inherent limitation at PV Crump et al created a remarkable amount of apparent hole separation at PV, and I think most of us know how he basically did that.  

SH, on the other hand, FOR A CLOSE COUPLE GOLF COURSE FROM GREEN TO NEXT TEE, probably has more land unused for golf within the confines of the entire golf course proper than any other golf course in the world.

I think you'll recall when we actually asked Dick Youngscap about that and he said that the golf course proper encompassed almost 550 acres. That is just immense for a close coupled golf course from green to next tee. And if that isn't amazing enough you can actually see seventeen of the holes in that immense expanse from the vantage of "Ben's Porch".

[TEPaul]

"Tom P,
I read that sentence as Tom Doak not agreeing with our definition of what is architecture."

Wayne:

Maybe so but we can certainly ask him. When he said he would argue your definition of architecture I took that to mean he would argue in favor of or for your definition of architecture. But maybe he meant he would argue against it.

It doesn't really matter to me as I will still support your definition of "architecture".

The primary reason I feel as you do is pretty simple really. It just seems to me that the dictionary definition of architect and architecture is someone that builds something and consequently something that is actually built.

And this frankly brings up what I consider to be the two very separate aspects of golf course architecture---eg a routing and then the "designing up" phase of a routing.

The fact is an architect who merely routes a golf course over a raw piece of land is simply only indentifying something of a structure over which a game can be conducted. At that point I do not consider that he has actually "built" anything, he has merely identified a course and direction of play.

Could golfers successfully play this routing at this point? Of course not, certainly not on most any raw site.

But then in the "designing up" phase he has to begin to actually physically do things to the site and the ground to prepare it for golf to be played on it.

To me that's when the actual "architecture" (man-made aspects) comes into it.

[Gene Greco]

Not to pick on Wayne, but I just read a comment of his which I found interesting.    

"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."

I am not one who subscribes to the belief that "discovered" architecture is any less valid/good/desirable then "built" architecture.  So far as I can tell, Sand Hills is the only course to come along in many a year which can stand shoulder to shoulderish with Pine Valley in terms of quality and admiration.  For those that do agree with Wayne, could you explain your position of why "natural" architecture is not as good as "built" architecture?

Sean,

I'd like to defend and contest Wayne's position .... at the same time.  

He's been drinking far too much of that "Philadelphia" water lately.

In the ultimate, it's the product that determines merit, not the methodology that produced it.

However, having said that I believe the genius and redeeming quality of an architect is his ability to maximize what's in the land.

I think that's where inherent talent lies.

Those that have the inate ability to see the land and visualize a hole would seem to be more talented than those who see the land and need to amend the land in order to produce a hole.

I find PV and SH to be two completely different golf courses, in almost every aspect, save for the number of holes.

PV seems to possess far more continuity amongst its holes, whereas, SH seems more of a collection of individual holes.






PATRICK, YOU ARE IN ERROR.






It's my belief that the "constellation routing" serves to support my theory on the individual-collective nature of the golf course.






ONE DOESN'T 'PLAY' GOLF ON A CONSTELLATION MAP. ONE WALKS THE GROUND THE COURSE IS BUILT ON AND THEN MAKES A DETERMINATION. AS I RECALL, AND UNDERSTANDABLY FOR MEDICAL REASONS, YOU WEREN'T ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THIS.


 



PV and SH are wildly different in most aspects of their creation.

PV had a novice design the golf course.
SH had two highly skilled architects.

PV's land was a forest, albeit on sandy soil
SH is devoid of trees.

PV had a novice as a developer
SH had a skilled veteran

PV had limited land
SH had unlimited land, which wasn't enough.






YOU'LL NEED TO CLARIFY THIS STATEMENT.






PV has a continuity from green to tee
SH is disjointed from green to tee.






 
YOU DIDN'T WALK THE COURSE.
IN MOST CASES IT IS NO MORE THAN TEN YARDS FROM ANY GREEN TO THE NEXT TEE. THE WALK FROM SEVEN GREEN TO EIGHT TEE IS A LITTLE LESS THAN THE WALK FROM CAPE GREEN TO NARROWS TEE AT NATIONAL GOLF LINKS OF AMERICA. NATIONAL GOLF LINKS OF AMERICA IS BILL COORE'S #1 RATED GOLF COURSE IN THE WORLD AND HE STROVE TO EMULATE THE GREEN TO TEE WALKS PRESENT AT NGLA WHEN HE BUILT SAND HILLS.
IF I HAD TO GUESS IT WOULD BE NGLA YOU WOULD CHOOSE TO PLAY EVERYDAY.






PV had to be created within limited confines
SH had no such constraints

PV is a year round golf course
SH is seasonal

PV was designed for "Championship" golfers
SH was designed for everyone






HOWEVER, AT SAND HILLS, 'EVERYONE' PLAYS A COURSE SET WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF 'THE' COURSE. 'THE' COURSE IS 7100 yards AND IS 'THE' WALKING COURSE.







PV is devoid of wind
SH thrives on wind






INDEED.
UNFORTUNATELY, YOURS WAS THE ONLY GROUP IN ELEVEN YEARS WHICH WASN'T THE RECIPIENT OF ANY WIND. THUS, YOU WEREN'T ABLE TO FULLY EXPERIENCE THE ACUTE CHAMELEON NATURE OF THE COURSE AND GENIUS WHICH WAS POURED INTO DESIGNING A COURSE TO ACCOMODATE THE MYRIAD OF WIND DIRECTIONS AND SPEEDS.
IT IS THE ESSENCE OF LINKS GOLF AND IS THE PREEMINENT REASON WHY A COURSE LIKE SAND HILLS AND THOSE FOUND ALONG THE COASTS IN THE BRITISH ISLES ARE EXPONENTIALLY MORE INTERESTING TO PLAY THAN VIRTUALLY ANY COURSE SET INLAND.
'NAE WIND, NAE GOLF.'







Both creations influenced architecture that would follow them.

Both retain lofty positions in the world of golf and GCA.

Forgetting about the relative remoteness of both sites at the time of their inception, if you could belong to one, as your nearby home course, which one would you pick ?  And WHY ?

Certainly, you can't go wrong with either pick, but, having your choice, which one would you choose to play every day, and why ?

These are proclaimed to be the TWO BEST GOLF COURSES IN AMERICA, CLASSIC AND MODERN.

Yet, If I had the luxury to pick ANY golf course to be my home course, my course to play every day, I wouldn't pick either one.  I find them to be too rigorous for daily play.
I'd pick any one of dozens of courses ahead of them.







I MIGHT TEND TO AGREE HERE AS A 2 HNDCP MEMBER OF SHINNECOCK PLAYED SAND HILLS ON HIS FIRST DAY THERE IN A WESTERLY WIND AND DECLARED THE COURSE THE HARDEST HE'D EVER PLAYED. I ALSO BELIEVE SAND HILLS TO BE THE HARDEST COURSE IN AMERICA IN A GREATER THAN MODERATE WESTERLY WIND.







And, my decision isn't based on the method of design and construction, it's based on the enjoyment of the challenge.

This doesn't diminish either courses' value, it only identifies my preference for daily play.

I have to add the caveat that I was at a physical disadvantage when I spent a few days playing SH, so my assessment might be improperly weighted, but, in thinking about it, even in tip-top condition, I believe that my assessment is on the mark.







NOT BEING PHYSICALLY HEALTHY ENOUGH TO WALK THE COURSE AND EXPERIENCE THE GREEN TO TEE WALKS FIRSTHAND HAS TAINTED YOUR ASSESSMENT. YOU KNOW YOU ARE ALWAYS WELCOME TO RETURN BACK BUT YOU HAVE ALREADY STATED TO ME IN PERSON IN MY OFFICE THAT THIS WOULD BE UNLIKELY DUE TO FAMILY, TIME CONSTRAINTS, ETC.
YOU JUST MAY HAVE TO TAKE MY WORD FOR IT.


[/color]

Sean:

    If you haven't played Sand Hills how could you 'discover that Sand Hills is not that clever a walking course?'

As I stated to Patrick above on virtually every hole it is only a ten yard walk from the green to the next tee. Though he is one of the finest golfers I've ever played with he understandably didn't walk due to a life threatening medical illness which prevented him from doing so. Thusly, he didn't experience the ease of transitioning from green to tee because he had to walk back to a cart after completing each hole, drive some distance and THEN walk back to where the tee is placed.

For example, after one completes #12 at Sand Hills it is  about 10-15 yards from the back of the green to the 13th tee. If one takes a cart one first has to walk about 40 yards back down the hill to the cart, drive about twenty yards and then walk back up the hill about twenty yards to get to the tee.

This might cloud someone's judgement regarding 'continuity' or 'walkability' if I had to 'walk' 60 yards to the next tee if I were in a 'cart' or 'walk' 10-15 yards if I were 'walking'.  

One must drive a cart one mile from the clubhouse to the course. Some people find it more convenient to remain in the cart instead of parking it and getting out and walking.

Barring any sort of medical condition which would prevent one from doing so, walking Sand Hills and PLAYING THE DIAMOND TEES requires about a little more effort than walking Shinnecock Hills or a little less than walking Bethpage Black.

         Gene

     

[Patrick_Mucci]

"PV has a continuity from green to tee
SH is disjointed from green to tee."

Pat:

I liked and agreed with most everything you said in that long "green" post.

But I don't agree with the remark quoted above.

TEPaul,

I played both courses under the side affects of chemotherapy and serious neuropathy and I can tell you, unequivically, that the walks from green to tee are more difficult at SH.

9 green to 10 tee is a prime example, as is the walk to the first tee.  Due to SH's nature of the high tee to low fairway to high green I think it's a more difficult walking course.

I"d like to try it again when I'm more fit.[/color]

[Matt MacIver]

I think it safely can be said that Shadow Creek, Straits and the like are all top tier examples of golf course engineering.  

But I'm not convinced that building great GCA is any easier or harder than finding one on the ground.  

As for which I would rather play -- built or found -- I'm completely indifferent, as long as it's "good" course (my personal defintion), passes the walk in the park test, etc.  

[TEPaul]

"and I can tell you, unequivically, that the walks from green to tee are more difficult at SH."

Patrick:

That's not the point. You said SH is disjointed from green to next tee. It is nothing of the kind---it is actually remarkably close coupled that way.

The other point is, other than the walk from #11 green to the 12 tee---something Crump apparently planned to do something about) PV is probably the most close coupled course in the world green to next tee. That aspect was something of a fixation with George Crump.

[Ally Mcintosh]

The other point is, other than the walk from #11 green to the 12 tee---something Crump apparently planned to do something about) PV is probably the most close coupled course in the world green to next tee. That aspect was something of a fixation with George Crump.

hey tom, that's quite a sweeping statement... i've no idea how close coupled pine valley is because i haven't seen the course but the tees would need to be on top of the greens for it to beat prestwick in this regard...

[TEPaul]

Gene:

Good call about Patrick driving around in a cart at Sand Hills. No wonder the guy was confused and thought the green to next tee connections were disjointed.

We have to remember that Patrick is from North Jersey and sometimes he can't even figure out how to get to Tony Soprano's house which is less than a quarter of a mile away. Frankly I think he and his car have been hit a few too many times by unconcentrating New Jersey soccer-moms in SUVs and on cell phones. This kind of thing has clearly scrambled his brain which was fairly well scrambled anyway.

Furthermore if I'd realized he was driving all over SH trying to find the next tee I would have slapped a bunch of Rule 6-7 penalties on him for slow play and Ran Morrissett would have consequently won his hickory club match against his more high tech opponent---Patrick Mucci.

I do remember on one hole---I think it was the 16th Patrick hit a very good drive and when we got out in the fairway he was nowhere to be found. He showed up about seventeen minutes later after probably getting confused and waylaid and going half way to Mullen in his cart in search of the 16th fairway.

It's a good thing Patrick wasn't out there in his cart in the old Indian days or he would've been dogmeat in a New Jersey second.

[TEPaul]

Ally:

PV's tees are not on top of the previous greens but the course is really close coupled that way.

Prestwick is probably so old fashioned its a throw back to the time separate tees did not exist in golf and the Rule of Golf was that you teed off within one club length of the cup you just played.  

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally:

PV's tees are not on top of the previous greens but the course is really close coupled that way.

Prestwick is probably so old fashioned its a throw back to the time separate tees did not exist in golf and the Rule of Golf was that you teed off within one club length of the cup you just played.  

well it was rerouted after that rule had disappeared but you're right... there's certainly still quite a few early courses in the UK where tees are just extensions of greens, the 18th at TOC being the most famous i guess...

...i was being pedantic for the sake of it...

...safety precautions these days renders the comparison between PV and SH somewhat irrelevant though i guess...

[Jerry Kluger]

Question: If C & C had half the land to work with would they have built a course as good as the current Sand Hills?

[Gene Greco]

   

Gene

Patrick isn't the first to say SH is a tough walk.  Mind you, the tough aspect may as you suggest, be the choice of tees and/or as Pat suggests, the up and down nature of the course.  I don't know, but if the walk is tough because of up and down (so long as we aren't talking about a goat track) I don't mind this.  My beef about a bad walk is nearly always concerning tee to green.  

I have gotten into this before when talking about mountain/very hilly courses.  I believe stringing holes together in a comfortable manner for the player really is part and parcel of good architecture.  

I know you may counter with the building archie has to arrange the natural material in someway (ie make it part of the building).  Is this not what a GCA does with combining natural parts with built parts?

Ciao

Sean:

   One thing this site teaches you is not to take all which is stated/printed as gospel.

Tom Paul stating that Sand Hills is remarkably coupled from tee to green is in complete contrast to Patrick's take.
 
MOST people who walk the course with me tell me it's not bad at all and in most cases is easier than taking a cart and playing from the shorter tees.

The perception of the opposite being true is something which some on here who are more vocal aside from Patrick have erroneously led you to believe.

You would relish the walk at Sand Hills especially at this time of year.


        Gene

 

[Jerry Kluger]

Sand Hills is not a bad walk - not as easy as Ballyneal but it isn't bad.  On the other hand, I thought Dismal River would be a very tough walk  - lots of climbing and some pretty good walks from a few of the greens to the next tee.

Anyone have an answer to my question.

[Gene Greco]

Sean:

   Getting behind the wheel of a magnificent automobile and driving it is exponentially more exhilirating than looking at the pictures and reading the accompanying story which goes along with them.

Check your IM.

       
     Gene

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()