Combining visuals with playability and tempation - The 12th at PV

[Ian Andrew]

 This is from 1934 - and there is clearly still no trees between tee and green.




Please don't get caught up in the details - this is just to show the hole without trees and a basic guess at where bunkers used to be from the old aerial.

[Kalen Braley]

Ian,

Thanks for posting that.  As best as I can tell from looking at various aerials shots on Google, Maps Live, and the Historical Aerial sites, the trees now occupy roughly the area of my crude hack-job.

I think Pat is right on the money in this thread....as much as I hate to encourage the guy!!  

[Sean Leary]

This hole is the one hole that has grown on me the most at PV. After my first round, I didn't think too much of it (partially because the back tee was closed), but subsequent playings have heightened my appreciation.

[TEPaul]

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


Patrick:

Of course that wasn't Crump's intention. Who said it was? Do you think the man built bunkers and their sightlines to be surrounded by trees?  

However, that 1925 aerial shows other areas of the course were cleared that did not have bunkers nor even holes. There were areas of that course he cleared for potential holes or parts of them that were never used. Why should those areas be cleared now just because they show up on that 1925 aerial as cleared?

For instance, the nature walk and above it on #15 was once cleared of trees. That was for a potential Cape Hole par 3 14th coming from the 14th's original tees or a short par 4 14th coming from tees near where he originally thought to have his 13th green far to the right and short of the present 13th green. Should that all be cleared today even if those holes were never used and never built? Of course not.

The best blueprint for tree removal is not that 1925 aeriral----the best blueprint for tree removal on that course is to simply remove the trees surrounding the bunkers and their sightlines of the holes THAT WERE BUILT on that golf course as I've been saying for years. Clearly that includes the trees on the left of #12 that surround those original bunkers and their sightlines.

This has been suggested for years now. Look in the back pages; it's all there. You must have completely missed it all.

[JSlonis]

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,

It is about a 295-305 yard carry from the back tee to the front right fringe of the green.  Depending on conditions, it would be difficult to carry a ball onto that green and have it hold.  The greenside bunkers are no fun, especially the right one which would catch most balls landing on the green.  From the normal tee, it is no problem for a longer accomplished player to reach that green with a driver but getting the ball to stay in a playable position after landing is the hard part.  As you stated, the angle from the original tee is easier.  From the newer back tee, the best a player could hope for is to get the ball to end up somewhere just in front of the green or maybe the front edge with a pretty straightforward pitch/chip.  With a middle or back hole location, it's still not an easy pitch to get close with the subtle fall-away green.

Although I'm not sure how accurate the measurement is on Google Earth, the line on the aerial below is 300 yards.  It stretches from the back tee to the front of the green.

[TEPaul]

Jamie:

In my opinion, you described  the realities of a drive at the 12th green perfectly. To try to drive into the middle or left (back) part of the green would be pretty hard unless the green was unusually soft.

Coming at the green from that direction was something that concerned Crump anyway, even with the so-called "pitch" off a shorter drive. It seems like something he tried to prevent by raising the left side etc.

Hence:

"He most particularly wanted the run-up shot to the green, and not the pitch. He was determined that a player who drove to the left (the line of a tee shot (parens mine)) should not be able to pitch to the green securely. Nor should the short driver be able to make up on his second with a full mashie or iron. He intended to raise the left side of the green SUFFICIENTLY and to make smooth fine turf in the front of the green for judging running ball, to make the green as fast as lightning and sloping gently away, so that delicate judgment would be required. He often spoke of No. 16 green at Myopia in the olden days and he wanted something on that order."

[TEPaul]

Jamie:

In my opinion, the issue of clearing trees out on the left to the extent that Crump had it involves these issues:

1. It returns the hole to the way it was designed and it returns the larger and wider scale of the entire hole.

2. It creates a situation where there would be a good deal more visibility on the green from the original tee and perhaps even the back tee (which is not original to Crump and is somewhat to the left of the original tee). To be able to see much more of the green from the tee may have the psychological  effect of pulling a golfer's eye left even if his strategy was to drive the tee shot into the fairway to the right.

3. Considering #2 to some extent it would probably make an aggressive tee shot at the green more tempting and somewhat safer to golfers (you cannot see players on the left or back of that green from the tee now, and players have driven right at that green with players on it even including President Brewer on it).

4. Obviously a player driving at the green would probably have a potentially easier recovery shot to the green if he came up short and left in bunkers that were not surrounded by trees. However, even given that fact trying to recover onto that green from those bunkers without trees around them, particularly to any part of it other than the front, would never be a simple recovery shot and certainly if it was a relatively long bunker shot--eg the left 3/4 of the green from that angle is pretty shallow and running both straight away and left and down towards the back.


Perhaps the last point of #4 (making a recovery from the left bunkering easier to do) is of some consideration to the club as to their potential plans to clear the trees from the left side or not but I, for one, do not know that.

[JSlonis]

Tom,

From what I've seen in competition on the 12th, the better players rarely make a big number on that hole.  The fairway is quite wide and your approach is usually with some type of wedge.  Like all holes at Pine Valley if you really mess up a shot you're going to pay, but I would think that the 12th usually plays strokewise as the easiest hole on the course.

I've always thought that regardless of the individual hole or course, the best design and architecture is the type that creates a wider spectrum of scoring.  As you mentioned, currently we visually steer away from the left side of #12, if that area was opened up it could create some more options or more doubt for the golfer standing on the tee.  Even uncovered, I would avoid those left bunkers at all cost.  A long bunker shot to that green is not what I'd want for a 2nd shot, but with the temptation to go at that green opened up more, it could possibly lead to a wider scoring range.

[TEPaul]

Jamie:

As to your last point, I firmly believe that would probably be the result in the long run----a wider scoring spectrum on that hole if even good golfers got more aggressive with trying to drive right at that green and tried that aggressive play far more than they do now (with the trees in there).

Even if it seemed to turn out over time that the scoring spectrum was not increasing (with the trees cleared out of the entire left side and via penalty for coming up short in those bunkers without trees surrounding them and their sightlines) I think the club should very seriously consider doing what Crump was trying to accomplish with "approach" shots (second shots) coming from the left of the fairway and as a result of weak drives----eg stiffen up the left side of that green and also make those bunkers (that would then be clear of trees) as severe as need be to increase the scoring spectrum for missing the green in there.

The remarks recorded by Simon Carr (quoted above) as to what Crump was trying to do on that hole are valid and they were used by the club once-----ie for deliberations about what to do with the course during that 1921 Advisory Committee work, along with similar hole by hole remarks from Crump's other great friend and playing partner down there, W.P Smith, and for that reason there shouldn't be any reason they (the remarks of Carr and Smith) shouldn't be considered by the club again. After-all they truly are the very best evidence that was ever left of what George Crump was trying to do with the holes of the golf course, and certainly including #12.

[TEPaul]

Jamie:

By the way, I'm not sure if you've ever been aware of it but these kinds of "remembrances" of people like Father Carr and Smith and others who knew Crump well and played a lot with him (particularly down there) make it pretty clear that Crump just loved the Driver and particularly his own which apparently was pretty huge and named "Bolivar."

But it is clear to see from what Carr and Smith said about what Crump was trying to accomplish with the tee shot on this hole, it was a good and long Driver as far down the fairway as possible to get into the long and narrow orientation of that green rather than into its shallow and wide orientation! This completely shows in that he was trying to encourage the "run-up" shot from far down the fairway and right and actually penalize players coming at that green from shorter and left and at the shallow and wide orientation of that green.

Quite obviously no one back then really considered actually trying to drive that green but the risk and reward of doing it today pretty clearly ought to address what Crump was saying and trying to do with approach shots (second shots) coming at that green from that particular direction and angle (a tee shot or a short drive from the left of the fairway).

[TEPaul]

An interesting item on PV's #12.

Harry Colt's version of the hole came from a tee just left and a little short of #11 green with a tee shot over the hill of the walk up to the present tees to a green pretty much straight out there and to the right of the present green. He listed that hole as 370-400.

From Crump's back tee the hole was around 325 and of course he angled the green completely right to left.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

If a picture is worth a thousand words, this one should be worth far more.


You can discuss Crump, Colt, and Coitus all you want, either in a historical context or in the context of hypotheticals.

The facts remain crystal clear, the 12th hole has been abandoned, architecturally. over the years, and as a result, the visuals and play of the hole have been compromised.
Whether it was due to benign neglect or intent is irrelevant.
The only important issue is, WILL Pine Valley reclaim the architecture features lost over time ?
And, if not, WHY not ?

Don't the custodians of every golf course have the obligation to return their course to it's architectural high water mark ?

Certainly, even novices and experts like yourself can see that the above photo represents a vast improvement over what exists there today.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

How long have I been mentioning what my suggestion has been for years about what would constitute an excellent tree removal plan for Pine Valley? And what has been my suggestion all that time? How many times do I need to repeat it for you to understand it?

Consider what I've been saying exactly and then take another look at that photo you posted of the 12th hole and tell me what my suggestion recommends be done on that hole?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

I think you began mentioning it about a year or so after I brought it to your attention 

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I began making the suggestion before I met you and certainly before you and I ever discussed Pine Valley or its tree situation. It's been close to a decade now. You don't need to take it on faith now but as long as I've mentioned it on this website is all in the back pages and you can just check that out if you want to know the truth of it.

But since you still don't seem to understand it, I'll say it again---my recommendation for tree removal at PV has been to remove the trees that surround all the bunkers and their sightlines. Do you see some problem with that? What do you suppose that means on the 12th hole?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

I think your suggestion would be a good first start.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Frankly, in the future with Pine Valley I think I should probably take better note of the significance of the smiley faces on your posts!! Just stick with me, palsy, and one of these years you too will probably figure out some of the architectural intracacies of the history and evolution of the place. 

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

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,

It is about a 295-305 yard carry from the back tee to the front right fringe of the green.  Depending on conditions, it would be difficult to carry a ball onto that green and have it hold.  The greenside bunkers are no fun, especially the right one which would catch most balls landing on the green.  From the normal tee, it is no problem for a longer accomplished player to reach that green with a driver but getting the ball to stay in a playable position after landing is the hard part.  As you stated, the angle from the original tee is easier.  From the newer back tee, the best a player could hope for is to get the ball to end up somewhere just in front of the green or maybe the front edge with a pretty straightforward pitch/chip.  With a middle or back hole location, it's still not an easy pitch to get close with the subtle fall-away green.

Although I'm not sure how accurate the measurement is on Google Earth, the line on the aerial below is 300 yards.  It stretches from the back tee to the front of the green.

JSlonis,

Could you please repost that aerial for that idiot-savant TEPaul.

Thanks

[TEPaul]

Jamie:

Don't repost the aerial on my account, post it for the PV information-challenged Pat Mucci. I've got everything I need right here plus I know the hole just fine.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Jamie,

TEPaul would rather curse the darkness than light a candle to illuminate the facts and the errors of his ways.

Please post that aerial of # 12 which also shows the approach to # 15, on the thread regarding alterations.

Thanks

[TEPaul]

Jamie,
TEPaul would rather curse the darkness than light a candle to illuminate the facts and the errors of his ways.
Please post that aerial of # 12 which also shows the approach to # 15, on the thread regarding alterations.
Thanks"


Pat:

One of the problems here is you've started so many threads on Pine Valley recently it's sort of hard to know which one to go to or refer to.

However, you mention above the approach to #15. You might mean on the right side that still has those two little fir trees about 30 yards short of the green. I don't feel they are of much consequence on that hole but I most surely feel the entire left side throughout perhaps 50-100 yards along the approach as well as at the greenside left is really important both in play and in the look of it.

This is an area that I think bears a good deal of analysis and discussion and needs to have a ton of architectural historic and evolutionary research plugged into it.

The fact is that area has changed considerably over the years perhaps even in recent years. Trees were allowed to overtake some of that hillside leading up to the green and at the green. I think some of it has been cleared but seemingly not enough to encourage a particular type of approach up into that green.

And one cannot help notice how much the bunkering all along there has been sort of incremented and formalized compared to what it once was. I think Bator may've done some to most of that but I'd have to check.

Personally, it wouldn't make that much difference to me if that area was restored to that really elongated stretch of sand from way out in the approach up to and past the green or left with the incremented bunkering but if trees were really cleared all along up in there I think it would really encourage players to try a real high fade type shot which would come at some true RISK AND/OR REWARD.

And not to mention if it were cleared back to what it once was it could be seen beautifully all the way back over 600 yards from the tee (I know as I've looked at it carefully).

The incrementing of that bunkering up on that hillside could've been done to stabalize things compared to what it once was but I'm not sure about that.

Anyway, that area if it allowed the attempt at a high fade approach could be one of the most interesting and exciting restorative measures that could be taken on the golf course, in my opinion.

[JESII]

Tom,

Why would someone try a risky high fade into that green from over there?

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Why would someone try a risky high fade into that green from over there?"


Sully:

I mean from basically anywhere in the approach to #15. Most all of it sort or slopes left to right to one degree or another and that's the basic lie conducive to a fade.

If I was close enough to that green I generally just tried to hit a normal shot allowing for a bit of fade because of the slope of the ground but if I was farther back I generally tried a pretty crazy and counterintuitive shot that was essentially a low draw that landed in front of the green and ran on (and hopefully over the pretty extensive false front). Hitting a low draw off a left to right lie like that approach is takes a lot of concentration but I figured most of the time I sure wasn't going to lose it right.

I'm pretty sure I got into that kind of shot over the years on that particular approach because there really was no way to hit a higher fade up in there because there were just too many trees all up along the left side.

By the way, that was a shot I never used much except on that particular approach. But if the trees were cleared out up all along that approach I definitely would try a high fade or sort of a normal shot from pretty far back that faded just due to the slope of the ground.

[JESII]

This gets to the heart of what I argued with Pat and Mike Cirba about with respect to the trees at PV...I disagree with your assertion that the trees eliminate the opportunity to hit a high fade/slice into that green...

If you are in the left corner of the fairway you would not be able to pull it off. In reality if you are in the left corner of that fairway at 165 out the fairway is about 50 yards wide and you should not be rewarded with the priveledge of hitting a goofy trick shot just to see if it can work...because there is certainly no strategic merit to the shot shape you're describing.

The thing is though...just as you said a few posts ago...if those trees are removed up the hill and that entire bunker complex is exposed the visual would be absolutely incredible...and an improvement.

My disagreement with Pat and Mike focussed on the reasons behind suggesting trees be removed. Crump's intent certainly has merit, but is difficult to pin down with absolute clarity. Strategic value is where we disagreed because, like your proposed shot into 15, I don't think there are two shots on the course that would be played differently if the trees were all removed to the outer edges of the bunkering...but the visuals would be off the charts...and it seems like they are moving in that direction.

I said "two shots" in that last paragraph because in the midst of that conversation with Cirba and Mucci a couple of years ago I was down there and played and played the front tees and the tee on #12 was on the short tee and I had a Driver out and would have hit it if only I could see the flag...which obviously increases ones confidence in being able to hit it on the green...which is obviously a high risk shot there, but also a very high reward...the fact is, because I could not see the flag I hit a 3-wood out in the fairway 30 or 40 yards from the front edge. So, if those trees were gone, I would play that hole differently on occassion, but I cannot think of another shot I would intend to play differently regardless of the trees.

[Mike_Cirba]

Sully,

What's with the Pat and Mike jokes?