[Patrick_Mucci]

In viewing aerials circa 1925 of the 12th at Pine Valley, there's a spectacular bunker complex along the entire left side of the fairway.

The green appears wedged between two expansive bunkers.

While the green is at an almost 90 degree angle to the tee, with today's better golfers hitting the ball 300+ yards off the tee, wouldn't clearing the entire left side of the hole, thus recapturing the bunker complex, and, removing the trees and underbrush blocking the view of the green, provide a tempting target to those golfer who could now clearly see the flag stick on the 12th green ?

Wouldn't the better golfer go for the green feeling that missing the green would merely leave him a recovery shot from the bunker ?

Wouldn't the risk/reward be spectucular ?

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Patrick,
Everytime I play at Pine Valley, I take a little walk over to the left of number 12 to view exactly what you are talking about.
And each time , I think what a spectacular hole it would make to clear the area and reexpose that marvelous bunker complex.

In my mind I see an area similar to that which surrounds 3 green and the walk up 4 fairway being the result of clearing out the area.
I am not long enough to go for the green, but would still hit driver down the right side of the fairway, but the long hitters, now being able to see the green would be enticed by the reward.

It is the one area on the course I would even consider changing, purely because I think the visual result would be spectacular.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Are you aware of or familiar with some of the threads in the past (in the back pages) that deal directly with your initial post on this thread and your points and questions?

If not I guess I have a ton of background information and history on that hole to plug in for you going all the way back to some of Crump & Co. headscratching on it and what he wanted to accomplish with it in all kinds of big and small ways, not the least being his concern about the left side of that green.

Are you even familiar with the emanation and creation of that back tee on that hole that is separated from Crump's original back tee by perhaps 30 or more yards?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Yes,

Now back to the issue.

The hole appeared to be a superior hole when the entire left side bunker complex was exposed.

Why was that bunker complex allowed to deteriorate and become part of the forest ?

Why were the bunkers, as a playing hazard, abandoned and allowed to be taken out of play by invasive tree/shrub/underbrush growth ?

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,

Yes,"



Patricio:

In that case why don't you put that info on here and in detail regarding what has been written about what Crump was thinking about with that hole? What are you expecting to happen on this thread----eg for people to just guess what his intentions were?

See my last post on PV #15 thread. As a teaser I will offer you an adult continuing education course on just the 12th hole for free. But you will need to agree to pay the deep discount super secret price for my continuing adult education course on the rest of Pine Valley.

[JESII]

Tommy, he should get more than a discount. I mean, don't they throw commemorative parties for the guys that invaded Normandy or survived Pearl Harbor...hell, the least you could do for a guy that fought in the Battle of Gettysburg is cover the fee yourself...

[TEPaul]

Sully:

You are good and decent man, for sure. I will therefore offer Patrick an adult continuing education course on the architectural history and evolution of PV for free. I don't know what Patrick's war record is but he is clearly an aging icon on how to play real strategic golf, that's for danged sure. He has even been known to become so passionate about golf holes, certainly including a number of them at NGLA, that he thinks they can be treated approximately the same way he may treat a beautiful woman and his attempts at the seduction of the same.

I think I saw him try that once on NGLA's #1 but apparently that hole does not have some of the same sexual responses to seduction as, say, a Heidi Klum, and that hole fairly slapped him about his forehead and such that time and delivered on him something like a double bogie.

[John Gosselin]

Pat, I have often thought the same thing on #12. Exposing the left side would be intimidating yet very inviting.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If someone could post a current aerial, it would be helpful.

[John Mayhugh]

If someone could post a current aerial, it would be helpful.

Here you go. 




Interesting observation, but don't let this distract you from discussing the fourth at NGLA!   

[TEPaul]

To return the left side of the 12th to the look of the hole and the visbility of the green from the original tee that shows on a 1925, 1938 and 1953 aerial they would pretty much need to start around the beginning of the big crossbunker or probably less than 100 yards off the tee and clear back about 25 steps (yards) in on the left all the way to the green. 25 paces is my estimation from pacing in there a few years ago by pacing in from just off the fairway and within about 50 yards of the green. Those bunkers in there are still very much in place even if some have clearly shrunk in size seemingly quite a bit compared to the old aerials.

One can easily identify and specifically the newish tree growth (from some point after the 1950s) in there on the aerial John Mayhugh just posted as it includes all the trees that are significantly more reddish brown in color compared to the trees all along to their left which are original.

Driving the green is a distinct possibility for the big hitter from the original back tee next to the water tower. However, from the back tee which is maybe up to 20+ yards behind and to the left of the original back tee it might be a bit of a stretch and it would also be harder to see as much of the green from that back tee which is not original. I believe that one was put in by John Arthur Brown.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Mayhugh,

Thanks.

If someone could post the aerial that appears on page 66 of Geoff Shackelford's book, "The Golden Age of Golf Design" you'll see a startling difference between the recent aerial and how the hole looked and played circa 1925.

It's clear that Crump NEVER intended the left side bunker complex to be planted and overrun with trees.

John, I'll probably get to # 4 at NGLA tomorrow evening or Friday evening.

[Bradley Anderson]

John, I'll probably get to # 4 at NGLA tomorrow evening or Friday evening.

Patrick,

I can't wait to read #4. I've really enjoyed the NGLA journey.



Mr. Paul,

Please don't provoke this man. He's on a mission from God.

[TEPaul]

Bradley:

Provoke him?? I taught him everything he knows about golf architecture. Don't you worry, I'm delighted to see him finally find his head with even NGLA and carry on this way as he's been doing with these threads. When he stumbles and falls I'm always there to pick him up and help him up and steer him back in the right direction. He knows that. I do less of that on these threads these days though because Pat has made good progress even if it's taken over a decade to get through to him. Mostly I just call him up on the phone these days and we talk it over offline and then he's more prepared to face the next day on these threads with some semblance of credibility.

I can't wait to get onto the next hole too----the famous NGLA Redan. For Goodness Sakes, Bradley, I taught Patrick what the traditional "Redan Shot" is. Previous to that he'd been trying to hit a big high fade over the mammoth "Redan" bunker.  WRONG!




"Cuz we gonna boogie oogie, oogie 'til we can't boogie no more
        Boogie, oogie, oogie, oogie, get down, get down"

[Mike_Cirba]

I haven't had the time recently to keep up with this and other related threads, and I did see one of Sully's posts that mentioned my impressions of the 12th hole, and I generally understand everyone's positions, but I do also think that the aerial that John just posted speaks VOLUMES.

IMHO, PV is the greatest golf course on the planet, but today's version is much too covered up for a good number of folks to see the brilliance for the trees.

I'll take any aerial version prior to 1960 and it would be a major, major, major improvement.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I think that aerial goes to support the need to reestablish the bunker complex/open area to the left.
What a great looking hole that would be...the entire left side would resemble hell half acre...wow what a prospect.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Looking at the aerial again, would you want to remove the entire "forest" and  then be able to see number 15...would the exposed area even enhance number 15?
opinions....

[George Freeman]

Great thread Patrick, you're on a roll!

Can someone post some of the older aerials?  Perhaps from that great website that I can't seem to locate. 

One each decade would be really neat to see the progression (or digression) over the years

Thanks,

George

[JSlonis]

If you check out this link you can look at the evolution of the 12th hole throughout the years and clearly see the influx of trees into the left side of the hole.  Enjoy!

http://www.historicaerials.com/default.aspx?poi=3850

[Kalen Braley]

JSlon,

I agree. Anyone who is following this thread MUST look at the aerial from 1940 and then the one from 2006.  Holy tree encroachment batman!!  Over half of that originial area to the left that was bunkered is now completely swallowed up by the trees.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If you check out this link you can look at the evolution of the 12th hole throughout the years and clearly see the influx of trees into the left side of the hole.  Enjoy!

http://www.historicaerials.com/default.aspx?poi=3850

JSlonis,

I can't thank you enough for those aerials.
It proves my point .... perfectly.

The tree/shrub/underbrush encroachment on # 12 and many other had nothing to do with Crump's intent.

It was a product of benign neglect and misguided planting.

The exhibit you posted should be a perfect blueprint to restore the course to its majestic form of olde.

While 1931 isn't 1925, it's close enough for me.

Thanks, this was a great find.

[Deucie Bies]

Patrick,

Thank you for starting this thread.  I have enjoyed looking at the historical aerials.  I have only been to Pine Valley once about 5 years ago, but was able to enjoy 3 rounds of golf.  I always wanted to hit driver on 12, but I think I ended up hitting 3 wood instead.  I think the hole would be improved by clearing out the trees.  It would make longer hitters consider going for the green and if they missed, they could potentially have the dreaded long bunker shot.  DO any of today's longer hitters attempt to drive this green?  Thanks again. 

[Marty Bonnar]

I believe there was a HIO on 12 quite recently.

For the shorter hitter (i.e. me these days) it's still a beast of a drive to get to a place with a decent view of the green, but for BIG guys  it's a good birdie chance.

I've seen those old Hagley aerials (a certain pal of mine emailed them to me ) and 12 would be WAAAY better with the fairway re-instated to them olden days.

While I'm at it, the double fairway on 17 would be utterly amazing were it to be 'found' again too...

cheers,
FBD.

[Sean Leary]

What would the carry be to the green on a direct line...Could you hold the green? From the white tees the angle is different and you may be able to hook it on but I am not sure you could do it from the back tee...

[Kalen Braley]

What would the carry be to the green on a direct line...Could you hold the green? From the white tees the angle is different and you may be able to hook it on but I am not sure you could do it from the back tee...

Sean,

According to Google Earth from the back tees you'd need to hit a fairly substantial draw that carried 285-290'ish to get on the green. From the whites, this is in the 260-270 range.  Based on what I can guess from the aerial you'd need to be damn precise on the yardage and landing location to get it to stay anywhere on the green and not find the shit.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()