Could Pine Valley survive, untouched if it were a typical local club ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

So, my original question remains, how would PV be different if it were a local club with a typical membership ?[/b]

Your rant almost scared me off, but I did want to see the thread continue, so I will ask for a clarification of your question..

Define "typical membership"..... are we talking about the demographic of the typical local member OR are we talking about the structure of a typical local club.

Chip, the cross section of the membership at PV differs substantially from that of "local" clubs, which have junior members, women members, senior members along with the regular members.

It's also the diversity in that broader spectrum of membership that I'm refering to.

The contrast between the evolution of Hollywood versus PV is interesting.

Both were intended to be "Championship" tests.

Both succeeded in crafting a "Championship" test.

However, their paths began to diverge, and that divergence led to substantive architectural changes at Hollywood.

So, the question remains, if PV had the membership found at a typical local club, how would the architecture have been altered ?

I previously listed two areas that might not survive.

If you talking about club structure then I think your Hollywood post summed it up.  Courses with benevolent dictators usually end up in the long term having the best golf course, PV, Oakmont, etc.. In this case democracy doesn't seem to work.

If you are talking about the demographic of the typical local member then I think members of "local" courses have a completely different expectation of their club versus what a typical PV member would have. 

My assumption is the PV members know they have a world treasure and simply know better than to mess with it.  (caveat, hasn't Fazio worked on it a little recently?)

You could say the same about Hollywood, yet, they traveled different paths.

Could someone retrieve and post the old aerial of Hollywood.
It's quite stunning.

Thanks

[JMorgan]

Pat,

The course could not survive as a typical local club because it is too hard of a test for the average member. It is unrelenting in its shot demands and too smart for the average player. 

Not only would the members eventually amend Sahara or Hell's Half Acre and a few of the forced carries off the tees, they'd probably remove a couple of steps from the Devil's AH (although the plan is to return it to the 6' wide/6' deep/five step dimensions).  Moreover, subtle "hazards" like the uneven lies on several approaches -- at #8, for instance -- would disappear, perhaps with lengthening. 

The unique contours on #2 green, all after climbing to the plateau of the green itself ... way too much for the typical member.   

I can't see much change on 1, 4, 5, or on the Wilson holes,  except perhaps 15.

But quite frankly, to mess with any of the holes on that course to make it "fairer" or "easier" or more democratic would be the highest form of gca sacrilege, plain and simple.  PV is a golf temple, literally a gallery of best one-, two-, and three-shot holes.   And no pictures of any of the individual holes do justice to the reality that faces you on the course. 

[Dan Herrmann]

I don't know the leadership structure of PV, but I'd bet it was more 'autocratic'.  If so, could you make the arguement that the autocratic leadership is what has helped PV thrive?

So may green committees are full of well meaning but unskilled folks.  Some, unfortunately, want to leave their mark.

Speaks well to the concept of the master plan, doesn't it?

[Bart Bradley]

Pat,

Here is the problem with the question:  Pine Valley is in no way your typical local club.  Is your question:  "If Pine Valley had only a typical local membership, would the course be altered?"

Or is your question, "if Pine Valley were a more typical golf couse, would it be altered"?

These are different questions....Because Pine Valley is NOT a typical golf course, I don't think any membership (local or national) would change it... It is a masterpiece and once so recognized, members or a "dictator" would be hesitant to change it...

I think your question is probably the former.  I think that, if the course itself were typical, it would have probably already been changed a great deal.

Bart,

Please reread my initial post, I was quite clear.

Thanks

Pat,

You are right.  I missed some of it.  And now that I understand your question, I agree with you and many of the others who have responded.  I think nearly the entire course would have been softened and made more playable.  Grandfather Golf and CC needs some bunker restoration, but there is concern that redeepening the bunkers could make it more difficult for the lesser players and some of the women who don't have the power to extricate themselves from very deep bunkers.

I think your rant was a bit over the top but you've earned the right to have your say. 

Thanks,

Bart

[Chris Kane]

I believe that one of the reasons that terrific contributors have left this site is the evolving tendency toward OT subjects and the process of diverting-deflecting-transitioning architectural subjects toward non-architectural subjects, miring the discussion in non-architectural related minutia.

Patrick, another reason that some terrific contributors have left is a tendency by other contributors to become abusive when people respond in good faith.  Whether they miss the point is beside the point - they don't deserve to be abused.

It reflects very poorly on those other contributors, and on this Discussion Group.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I believe that one of the reasons that terrific contributors have left this site is the evolving tendency toward OT subjects and the process of diverting-deflecting-transitioning architectural subjects toward non-architectural subjects, miring the discussion in non-architectural related minutia.

Patrick, another reason that some terrific contributors have left is a tendency by other contributors to become abusive when people respond in good faith.  Whether they miss the point is beside the point - they don't deserve to be abused.

If you think the diverting of the thread over the concept of a local club and a drive time of 30, 60. 90 or 120 minutes was in good faith, you're either naive or disengenuous, take your pick.

There were plenty of contentious debates with Gib, Tommy and others, and that's NOT what drove them from the site.

It's idiotic responses and the defense of idiotic responses, such as your post, that's done the damage..

Could you name five posters who left the site because they were abused ?

If not, cease your drivel and whining.

It reflects very poorly on those other contributors, and on this Discussion Group.

Why don't you start some interesting threads on architecture, and/or admonish those posting OT's, or those diverting good architectural threads down the path of foolishness.

I don't need someone who rarely creates a thread,, someone who doesn't remain in contact with Tommy Naccarato and Gib Papazian, telling me why they left the site, especially when I've been in touch with them since their departure and have echoed some of their sentiments succinctly.
 

[Chris Kane]

Patrick, in your haste to defend yourself, you've failed to notice that I didn't disagree with anything you said!  I did not defend idiotic responses.  I agree with you that good contributors have left the site because of OT posts - I had an email from one this morning.  Its a shame that good contributors would choose to leave.

I agree with the substantive position of your "rant" in reply #23.  I am disappointed for you that this thread was derailed by irrelevant nitpicking.  I also understand your frustration. 

What I didn't agree with was your tone, which in my opinion was unnecessary.  If you believe that calling people "morons" or "idiotic" is acceptable, whether online or in the real world, we have a fundamental difference in what we consider an acceptable standard of behaviour. 

Given the choice of "naive" or "disingenuous", I will take neither.  I characterised the responses as being "in good faith" because I don't see any hostile agenda behind those responses.  I highly doubt that people are responding to your threads with malicious intention of diverting them.  You could call those posts foolish or careless, but I don't believe they were in made in bad faith.  That doesn't mean I think they're acceptable, far from it.

[JESII]

Pat,

I think club governance like that at PV is great, but it comes with two risks...first, can the club find a sucsessor capable of maintainng the status quo? Second, is that person interested in the job?

I believe Pine Valley has been fortunate to answer yes to both questions, not many clubs have been so lucky. Holywood may be one of them, I know nothing about the place.



As to what would change at Pine Valley IF the governance structure were to change...that's a bit like asking if the Queen had balls, wouldn't she be the King?

My first thought would be the transition areas between the tees and the fairways would be comprimised. They are typically 90 - 150 yards of sandy scrubland that would be very intimidating for any 15+ handicapper that played there frequently. Those that do play there frequently just take there medicine and play the ball as it lies which is great, but also a function of the club governance structure...which I think is your thesis, no?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

Clubs like PV, Seminole and others seem to have their governing successors picked and groomed by the current Major Domo. 
I don't think there's a scarcity of candidates.

Difficult golf courses are a bit like wild women, great for an occassional fling, but, difficult to live with on a daily basis.

What seperates PV from many other difficult courses is fairway width.

The fairway widths are very generous, save for a few holes, and that width translates into allowing the higher handicap who carries the ball a reasonable distance, to navigate the golf course successfully.

That doesn't mean that they don't encounter difficulty, only that the margin for error has been greatly expanded off the tee.

I'd agree that the heroic carries would have to go, OR, more likely, that new forward tees would be installed.

Hole # 2 would be amongst the first holes that might be modified,
in the landing area, incline to the green and the putting surface.

It seems to be too overwhelming a challenge for a broad spectrum of a membership, especially if the average handicap was 18, which I believe was the figure cited for most local clubs some time ago.

While # 13 is a difficult hole, I don't see much in the way of modification.

# 8 presents a unique challenge.
I could visualize the right side green being greatly expanded for membership play.

When you think about the architect's and the club's task of creating and perpetuating a challenge, I think it's much harder to accomplish today due to the disparity in distance issue.

How does one accomodate the superior player and the average and poor player on the same course ?

[John Foley]

How does one accomodate the superior player and the average and poor player on the same course ?

Isn't the answer to this the recovery shot?

The more penal the course the lack of the recovery shot. Heavy tree'd very difficuly native area's & H20 all limit this recovery. Giving this recovery option still challanges the suprtior player but gives the average player the chance to get back in a hole after a poor shot.

So could PV start here? Open up the recovery options to the offline shots?

Hmmm... how would they do that??

[JESII]

Pat,

I'd be curious what you have in mind with the incline to the second green...are you speaking of the bunkers in that hill? Or the height of the hill itself?


As to the major domo hand picking his successor, you are likely correct in many instances, but at some point along the road there must be a vacancy in one of the two areas I identified and that is the fork in the road that can lead a course down the wrong path.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Patrick,
I believe that the general accepatance of Pine valley as one of the finest courses in the world has enabled very little change in the first place.

I think that the governing tzar has been able to sustain a little change policy because of how good the course is.
An interesting, all be it unlikely question, would be what happens if all of a sudden the ranking became say six or seven...would the institute any changes?

My feeling is that little would be done and the outside world be judged as incorrect and pure judges!

[Bradley Anderson]

Patrick,

I would say no, Pine Valley would not have survived untouched at a typical local club.

I think you are right on in asserting that the culture of the club is what has preserved it.

[Jed Peters]

I believe that one of the reasons that terrific contributors have left this site is the evolving tendency toward OT subjects and the process of diverting-deflecting-transitioning architectural subjects toward non-architectural subjects, miring the discussion in non-architectural related minutia.

This thread might be a good example of the latter.

A question ABOUT ARCHITECTURE was asked, and some of the responses are incredibly idiotic, focused on the length/time of the drive to the golf course, rather than on which architectural features might be altered and why, had the club's membership and culture replicated that of a typical local club.

If you morons can't understand that, get off the site, or at least, don't type words that confirm your stupidity

And, if you don't understand the question or premise, ASK for clarification.

Where are Tommy Naccarato and Gib when they're needed ?

End of rant

Pat:

I've read your responses to this thread, your mini-rant, and some of your other commentary in other threads.

Is there a reason you are so caustic? Your comments are, in and of themselves, trenchant and acerbic....almost like you're TRYING to piss off people around you.

This has gotten steadily worse over the last couple years as well--I'm wondering if it's a "grumpy old man" thing? Or is there some issue in your personal life that's flowing onto the keyboard?

Either way, it'd be nice to have someone with your palmares (both in terms of a playing resume and overall knowledge regarding some of the world's greatest golf clubs and courses) that is not so derisive towards his fellow forum members.

Either that, or feel free to bag out like your other buddies Tommy and Gib did.

Me, I'd prefer to have someone of your knowledge around this site.

[Michael Moore]

Gib Papazian is still active on this discussion board.

[Bill Brightly]

My bet is that Pine Valley is unique in that from the minute a prospective member is asked to join, he knows he will be walking on near-hallowed ground and the LAST thing he would do is suggest changes to the place. (I bet they'd be afraid of getting the boot...) And THAT is not the case at almost any other club, where every member is an expert with an opinion...


I think a related question would be very interesting: would PV have survived, untouched if they hosted US Opens (or PGA events) on a regular basis?

[Jed Peters]

Gib Papazian is still active on this discussion board.

I stand corrected on that issue. Thank you.

[JMorgan]

... and they'd need to erect a backstop in back of #9.  Whoever overshoots the left green by a few feet quickly ends up 50 ft below, next to the #18 carry.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gib Papazian is still active on this discussion board.

How many architectural posts has he made in 2008 ?

Gib's participation is de minimis at best, especially compared to his prior level of participation.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I've read your responses to this thread, your mini-rant, and some of your other commentary in other threads.

Is there a reason you are so caustic?

Yes.
However, you have to differentiate between caustic comments and humor without the recipient "getting it"

Your comments are, in and of themselves, trenchant and acerbic....almost like you're TRYING to piss off people around you.

I don't choose physicians based upon their ability to perform stand up comedy.

Likewise, I don't care if I piss off people who AREN'T making reasonable contributions in furthering architectural discussions/debates on this website.   Especially when they can't read and comprehend what was typed,  choosing instead to formulate their own, erroneous interpretation.

This has gotten steadily worse over the last couple years as well--I'm wondering if it's a "grumpy old man" thing?

Not at all.

It's a reaction to stupidity and an aversion to wasting my time.

I try to create interesting topics.
In many cases I've succeeded, but, when cretins deflect, divert and disrupt a potentially good thread, I have to ask myself, WHY am I wasting my time ?

I enjoy IM or offsite conversations with many participants.
Last night I had a lengthy discussion with TEPaul and today I had a lengthy discussion with Jay Flemma.

I regard those discussions as very PRODUCTIVE and INFORMATIVE even if my position may differ from others.

Rather than abandon the site, I decided to voice my concerns.
If the drivel continues I'll invest my time in more productive endeavors.

Or is there some issue in your personal life that's flowing onto the keyboard?

Life is good and I'm a happy camper.  I'm even starting to hit my irons better, although, my putting remains a challenge.

Although, the failure of these idiots in Washington to come to a consensus to FIX the problem is troubling me.

They'd rather get on TV and fiddle while Rome burns than solve a problem/s that they themselves contributed to.

Either way, it'd be nice to have someone with your palmares (both in terms of a playing resume and overall knowledge regarding some of the world's greatest golf clubs and courses) that is not so derisive towards his fellow forum members.

So, you want me to suffer fools gladly ?

The deflecting and diverting of reasonably solid topics over drivel is detracting from and undermining this site.

OT's continue to thrive and few object to them.

I object to the direction the site is heading and I'm not shy about stating it.

Either that, or feel free to bag out like your other buddies Tommy and Gib did.

The line in Vegas is showing that that's no longer a long shot, but about even odds as I type.

Me, I'd prefer to have someone of your knowledge around this site.

Then be a more active participant and more critical of OT's and inane deflections of good threads
 

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

There's some darn good ranting on this thread.  I just feel somehow compelled to add a few points:

1.  Your back and forth with Jed (and others in this thread) has little to do with architecture, nor do your complaints about the direction your thread has taken.  So be careful about that glass house of yours.

2. If you really believe Gib diminished his participation here due to excessive OT threads, I want some of what you are smoking.  Good lord, the man was and is likely the MOST frequent contributor to such!  He also has a life, with some difficulties.

3.  That being said, I too wish Gib would participate more - because he seemed to have grasped something you talk against, but at times fail to ACT about... and that is that so-called "OT" threads and comments are as much a part of this site as anything else, and that is for the good.  Or do we forget college football discussions?  To me it's all part of the fun here.  If people don't like them they do not have to read them.  My strong feeling has always been that if this site was indeed 100% architecture only, people would LEAVE in droves.  Man does surely not live by architecture alone, and although you give it the good fight, damn near every possible topic has already been covered.  Your current threads on handicap and stroke play v. architecture are good examples:  interesting for sure, but also re-treads of topics covered several times before.

But now back to your interesting thread here (which is unique, well done!).  Apologies for following the digression you yourself started.

Yours in all due respect and admiration (as you remain a good egg despite how you try to portray yourself to guys like Jed),

Tom Huckaby

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

There's some darn good ranting on this thread.  I just feel somehow compelled to add a few points:

1.  Your back and forth with Jed (and others in this thread) has little to do with architecture, nor do your complaints about the direction your thread has taken.  So be careful about that glass house of yours.

If you don't understand my objection to the diverting of a thread over PV being a "local" club, then you're part of the problem.

2. If you really believe Gib diminished his participation here due to excessive OT threads, I want some of what you are smoking.  Good lord, the man was and is likely the MOST frequent contributor to such!  He also has a life, with some difficulties.

I can probably relate to that better than most.
Gib got fed up with the quality and direction of the discussions, as did Tommy Naccarato.

3.  That being said, I too wish Gib would participate more - because he seemed to have grasped something you talk against, but at times fail to ACT about... and that is that so-called "OT" threads and comments are as much a part of this site as anything else, and that is for the good. 

Have someone explain the camel in the tent analogy to you.

Or do we forget college football discussions? 

You will note that I haven't participated in any of them for some time.

And, most of the time it was you who instigated or fomented the dissent.

To me it's all part of the fun here. 

Then you're at odds with Ran Morrissett's stated mission for the discussion group.  Since you seem to be unfamiliar with it, let me quote what Ran stated.

"Golf Course Architecture
A free access board for the discussion of golf course architecture related matters. (note: non-architecture threads/posts are deleted).


Could Ran be any clearer ?

Your interpretation of the purpose and use of the discussion board is at complete odds with Ran's stated purpose.

So, is the discussion board for your entertainment on topics not related to architecture, or, is it for the stated purpose of discussing archtitecture to the exclusion of non-architecture threads/posts. ?

If people don't like them they do not have to read them. 

That's hiding your head in the sand and failing to realize the diluting nature of OT's in terms of the quality of this site.

My strong feeling has always been that if this site was indeed 100% architecture only, people would LEAVE in droves. 

Good.
Let those who don't want to discuss architecture leave.

Ran's stated that he doesn't want Non-Architecture threads or posts.

Why are you defying his written word ?

Man does surely not live by architecture alone, and although you give it the good fight, damn near every possible topic has already been covered. 


Then go to another site for non-architecture related topics.

Your current threads on handicap and stroke play v. architecture are good examples:  interesting for sure, but also re-treads of topics covered several times before.

I think you'll find some nuances if you look carefully.

Tommy Naccarato, Gib, TEPaul, myself and others had suggested that Ran create another category for discussions, one populated by those who would ONLY discuss architecture.  I regret that he didn't pursue that avenue.

But now back to your interesting thread here (which is unique, well done!).  Apologies for following the digression you yourself started.

Yours in all due respect and admiration (as you remain a good egg despite how you try to portray yourself to guys like Jed),


I thought my reply to Jed was genuine.

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

We shall agree to disagree, about basically all of this.  Gib can speak for himself if he wishes; just note that as recently as September 26 he participated in a thread fully devoted to college football.  So judge for yourself, if he does not speak.

As for Ran's wishes, he has told me TO MY FACE (at Sand Hills) and in subsequent emails in following years that he has little problem with OT threads or posts.

If you do wish to hang your hat on this:

"Golf Course Architecture
A free access board for the discussion of golf course architecture related matters. (note: non-architecture threads/posts are deleted)."

Just do note that "architecture-related" could encompass every single part of what you rail against in this thread.  And as for non-architecture posts being deleted, sometimes that is true, but most of the time it is not.  If Ran did really care about this as much as you state, then more would be.

I do continue to believe the problem is in the minds of you and a few others, but is far from universal.

But again, to each his own.  If this causes your departure, then that would be a sad thing.  Just do note the site has survived the few departures that have occurred, and while you don't seem to like the place as it is now, many are just fine with it - including me.  I think the forum here is as strong as it ever has been, if not stronger.  The good ole days were neither all that good nor al that "ole."

But again, to each his own.

Again in respect, refraining from using annoying color-coded adversarial text,

Tom Huckaby

ps - my point re Jed is that in your replies to Jed (and others), you tend to seemingly intentionally make yourself out as a royal prick.  My experience with you has shown you NOT to be such a thing, far from it.  So if that is what you are, then it is genuine.  I tend to believe it's more you having the fun here you usually have. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

We shall agree to disagree, about basically all of this.  Gib can speak for himself if he wishes; just note that as recently as September 26 he participated in a thread fully devoted to college football.  So judge for yourself, if he does not speak.

I'm aware of Gib's comments on his beloved USC.
Gib was a frequent and passionate contributor on GCA.
He no longer participates to the same degree on GCA.

As for Ran's wishes, he has told me TO MY FACE that he has little problem with OT threads or posts.

That was probably some time ago.
I don't think those are his thoughts today.

If you do wish to hang your hat on this:

"Golf Course Architecture
A free access board for the discussion of golf course architecture related matters. (note: non-architecture threads/posts are deleted)."

Just do note that "architecture-related" could encompass every single part of what you rail against in this thread. 

Not really.

I objected to those diverting the focus OFF of architecture.

And as for non-architecture posts being deleted, sometimes that is true, but most of the time it is not.  If Ran did really care about this as much as you state, then more would be.

That's purely a function of Ran's time, not his intent.

I do continue to believe the problem is in the minds of you and a few others, but is far from universal.

But again, to each his own.  If this causes your departure, then that would be a sad thing.  Just do note the site has survived the few departures that have occurred, and while you don't seem to like the place as it is now, many are just fine with it - including me.  I think the forum here is as strong as it ever has been, if not stronger.  The good ole days were neither all that good nor al that "ole."

Depends upon what your standards are.

I prefer discussions ON GCA with others interested in GCA, Geoff Shackelford, Tommy Naccarato, Gib and others, to discussions about inane off topic subjects.

You've always defended OT's and I understand your position.

[Jed Peters]

Pat, Tom, etc.:

I did think that Pat's reply was genuine. And I DO think that he's a great member of this fantastic board.

I just have problems with the rebuttals and deliveries.

I think the threads are, for the most part, fantastic.

I think that Pat Mucci is probably a hell of a guy to play a round of golf with, have drink with, etc.

I think that, at time, while he's well intentioned, he comes off as a bit of a dick.