Old Pine Valley Photos

[Kirk Gill]

It was a search for pictures of Pine Valley that first brought Golf Club Atlas to my attention some years ago. There's something about that course that sparks the imagination. Before I joined here I'd never met a single person who had played there.

One thing that really strikes me looking at the difference between the old pictures and the more recent ones is how in the older ones the grass just looks like it's draped over the sand, where now the look is more conventional, grass with pits of sand (even though some of those pits are huge). I kind of get the same feeling looking at older pictures of Cypress Point and comparing them to recent pics.

I was talking to Tom Paul about PV, and his recollection was that the alternate fairway on 17 (like much of that hole a design element of Hugh Alison) dropped out of use over time, and that the long-time superintendent there said that it was hard for the hoses to reach it! Apparently the green on 17 was constructed by Flynn, and combined elements of two different plans for the green that Alison had created. Alison left prior to construction.

He also mentioned that the picture some were wondering about from that second set of pics on the first page of the thread was indeed of the fourth green, looking back from the clubhouse, and that the fellow on the right in the white hat is in fact Mr. Crump himself.

No mention, JM, regarding benign neglect or the "purity of the product," although I'll be sure to ask about it if we speak again on the matter.

[JESII]

I was talking to Tom Paul about PV, and his recollection was that the alternate fairway on 17 (like much of that hole a design element of Hugh Alison) dropped out of use over time, and that the long-time superintendent there said that it was hard for the hoses to reach it! Apparently the green on 17 was constructed by Flynn, and combined elements of two different plans for the green that Alison had created. Alison left prior to construction.

You know, it's an interesting thing Kirk, about that alternate fairway on #17. I don't have any of the historical info other than what I've learned on here so I couldn't begin to guess why it went out of use but the short hose always seemed like a superintendent's tale to me. If it were viable they would just get a longer hose. So my assumption is it wasn't viable.

Why wouldn't it be viable?

Not knowing what the green might have looked like originally, and just going on the current green complex...all you gain by going right is a better view with your wedge or 9 iron...but you completely lose any sense of hitting into the green from the proper angle. You're coming across the ridge and slope onto a shallower (less room front to back) surface. If we can reasonably assume that only better players would take the risk of the extra carry off the tee to get up there, I think we can also reasnobly assume they would recognize the diminishing returns of doing so when a few of their well-struck wedges went spinning off the ridge and down into the garbage in front.

I bet it just fell out of use...but that bet is based on the current green configuration, which may not have been there at the time.

[Sean Leary]

I was talking to Tom Paul about PV, and his recollection was that the alternate fairway on 17 (like much of that hole a design element of Hugh Alison) dropped out of use over time, and that the long-time superintendent there said that it was hard for the hoses to reach it! Apparently the green on 17 was constructed by Flynn, and combined elements of two different plans for the green that Alison had created. Alison left prior to construction.

You know, it's an interesting thing Kirk, about that alternate fairway on #17. I don't have any of the historical info other than what I've learned on here so I couldn't begin to guess why it went out of use but the short hose always seemed like a superintendent's tale to me. If it were viable they would just get a longer hose. So my assumption is it wasn't viable.

Why wouldn't it be viable?

Not knowing what the green might have looked like originally, and just going on the current green complex...all you gain by going right is a better view with your wedge or 9 iron...but you completely lose any sense of hitting into the green from the proper angle. You're coming across the ridge and slope onto a shallower (less room front to back) surface. If we can reasonably assume that only better players would take the risk of the extra carry off the tee to get up there, I think we can also reasnobly assume they would recognize the diminishing returns of doing so when a few of their well-struck wedges went spinning off the ridge and down into the garbage in front.

I bet it just fell out of use...but that bet is based on the current green configuration, which may not have been there at the time.

If you look at the pic on here of 17, I assumed that it was gone by the time the pic was taken. But in looking at it again, I think its there, but has a huge sandy face in front of it so it's totally blind. If that is the case, and knowing it wasn't a big landing area, maybe that is why it wasn't used more, and hence why they let it go? Too much risk, not enough reward.

[JESII]

Sean,

In the aerial in Michael's first post the right fairway is clearly still there...and it looks like the green is oriented to the left fairway so it's reasonable to think the risk/reward was just a little out of whack...would it be a better hole with it today? Can't see how as the same disproportion would apply.

[Sean Leary]

Sean,

In the aerial in Michael's first post the right fairway is clearly still there...and it looks like the green is oriented to the left fairway so it's reasonable to think the risk/reward was just a little out of whack...would it be a better hole with it today? Can't see how as the same disproportion would apply.

I guess it wasn't as clear to me, as it is hard to determine depth and how far out that carry was.  Also, it looks like you can't see much of the right fairway from the tee. Unfortunately, I have had that shot from the right side, but it wasn't on purpose.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

i agree with Jim, I really dont think restoring the right side fairway would do anything to improve the hole.
The location of and how that green sits would not make you want to attck from the right side at all..it is hard enough from the 'head on ' approach to judge the distance...from the right you would be playing down grain so to speak..only making it more difficult to control the distance.
It is my guess that is the reason the right side fairway disappeared it was hardly ever being used!

Everytime I see pictures of the great lady, it reminds me of what a wonderful place Pine Valley is..such a remarkable course

[BCrosby]

I'm not sure the passive voice is the best way to describe the tree growth at PVGC. You don't fail to notice a new tree growing in the middle of a bunker. Someone at some point decided that more trees would be a good thing.

I would love to hear their reasoning. Sully gives a plausible rationale for letting the alternate fw on the 17th go. But I've never seen any account of why PV permitted so many trees to grow over so much of the course. Did they have, like many other clubs, a beautification program at one point? If so, why weren't the old bunkers graded away? Odd.

Bob  

[archie_struthers]

 


I'm not getting any bites on my original question so will ask again for those who have played or know of what I speak...look at the old photo posted of #6 tee ...........how great would that tee shot be if it were uphill .....more akin to # 4  Perhaps it would be too repetitious , as  then 4...5... and now  6 would be uphill shots off the tee

 The old photo struck me as being quite uphill relative to the teeing ground that has existed for over 35 years at the "Valley "  does anyone here remember an earlier day   ?

[JESII]

Archie,

I think that picture was taken from the front of the tee with the camera pointing slightly down so the horizon looked higher than it actually is. I think of #6 as slightly uphill from the tee to the beginning of the fairway even still.

Would it be better if it were 15 feet lower? Not to me, it would be better if the row of spruces through the fairway were replaced by unraked sandy waste.

[Sean Leary]

Would 6 be better if the house weren't there and the tee moved back? That would make it more up hill, no?

[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

I'm not getting any bites on my original question so will ask again for those who have played or know of what I speak...look at the old photo posted of #6 tee ...........how great would that tee shot be if it were uphill

Archie
I definitely don't need 6 tee to be any lower but I do think in the picture it's an optical illusion, one from the angle the photo was taken and secondly I think the larger visable area of sand face in front of the fairway makes it look higher than it really is. If you take a look at the current picture of 6 a little further down, you can see the elevations are similar.

Everyone: As for 17. Orginally the bunkering around the green complex was different. I have seen pictures where the elevation of the sand was near the elevation of the green surface not the 4-5ft below as it is now. I'm not sure how that would have affected playability from the second fairway but when that fairway was there the hole was different. I have looked at the green from the second fairway location a number of times and it is a nicer shot to the green than the uphill shot from the main fairway, however getting it up to the ideal location on the second fairway is not easy (unless of course you suck like me and don't want to go there .)

I also think that PV has aged and adapted over the years to what it has today. I can't say that at any point any one person made a decision to change it around and think a lot was born from necessity and the natural progression of the land from having a golf course on it. If you take the early pictures and see how much sand was there it doesn't take much to realize that it was unsustainable to keep all that sand in one place. I know how much work it is to put sand back in its current state and after a bad storms we had back hoes and skid steers in the bunkers, so it is inconcieveable how 70,80,90 years ago they could effectively put all the sand back to where it belonged. My example of 17 is probably a good one, like I said when the course was built the sand came up to the green and I'm sure it eroded away over the years to give us what we have today. Similarily the DA has changed so much from not actually being there to having the green funnel into it to its current shape. Erosion was the biggest factor in its development. Grass is a great soil stabilizer and I think that over the years they needed to (or nature took its course) and stabilized the areas, if not PV would probably have just washed away.

[Tim Nugent]

I recognize some of these old photos from a book PVCC produced called Pine Valley Golf Club A Chronical.  It has the history, some funny stories and best of all a section called Then and Now which has photos of...you guessed it... then and now.  Only now are in color and now was 1982 (copywrite date).

For those discussing the trees and lack thereof in the early pictures. here is an outtake... "With the help of the US Foresty Service, between 3,000 and 5,000 seedlings were planted each year (started in '27, finished in '32) at a cost per 1,000 seedlings of between $6 an $8.  Over 70% of these successfully flourished as mentioned earlier. This further advanced Crump's desire to keep each fairway a separatre entity, lost from view from any other part of the course.... Add to that 1,000 4 to 5 inch cuttings of Holly were planted around the course, many which have grown in majestic beauty."

[BCrosby]

Thanks Tim. Very helpful. But I still don't understand why they didn't grade over the bunkers under all the new trees.

Bob

[JSlonis]

Bob,

I would guess the reason no bunkers were graded out is that I don't think any of the new seedlings that were mentioned above were ever planted inside the lines of Crump's original bunkers. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

I recognize some of these old photos from a book PVCC produced called Pine Valley Golf Club A Chronical.  It has the history, some funny stories and best of all a section called Then and Now which has photos of...you guessed it... then and now.  Only now are in color and now was 1982 (copywrite date).

For those discussing the trees and lack thereof in the early pictures. here is an outtake... "With the help of the US Foresty Service, between 3,000 and 5,000 seedlings were planted each year (started in '27, finished in '32) at a cost per 1,000 seedlings of between $6 an $8.  Over 70% of these successfully flourished as mentioned earlier. This further advanced Crump's desire to keep each fairway a separatre entity, lost from view from any other part of the course.... Add to that 1,000 4 to 5 inch cuttings of Holly were planted around the course, many which have grown in majestic beauty."

Tim,

Part of the problem may be that noone in 1927 -1932 envisioned the impact that mature plantings would have on the corridors of plan and view.

In addition, How do we know, "This further advanced Crump's desire to keep each fairway a separatre entity, lost from view from any other part of the course"

Did Crump ever commit those words to writing ?

If not, how can you attach any credibility to that premise ?

[Rick Sides]

Tim,
Where did you find out about the trees planted between 1927-1932?

[Michael Whitaker]

I've never had the good fortune to visit Pine Valley, so I find these pictures fascinating.

I'm truly surprised at how the course no longer has the "scruffy" pine barrens look of the old photos and has acquired a more manicured look. Some of the modern photos look as if they could have been shot at any number of courses that I have visited such as Musgrove Mill, True Blue or World Woods.

[Michael Whitaker]

Here is an OLD vs NEW comparison of photos of the 10th hole... which do you prefer?

                    Pine Valley #10 Photo Comparison

[Patrick_Mucci]

Here is an OLD vs NEW comparison of photos of the 10th hole... which do you prefer?

                    Pine Valley #10 Photo Comparison

Michael,

Great presentation/comparison.

I prefer the old by a MILE

If for no other reason than when playing # 10,  the wind would not be blocked by those massive trees as it is today !

[Sean Leary]

Here is an OLD vs NEW comparison of photos of the 10th hole... which do you prefer?

                    Pine Valley #10 Photo Comparison

Michael,

Great presentation/comparison.

I prefer the old by a MILE

If for no other reason than when playing # 10,  the wind would not be blocked by those massive trees as it is today !

Aren't a lot of those trees gone now?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

NO

[Michael Whitaker]

I greatly prefer the old look as well. The difference in the look is VERY dramatic. Why do you think there was such a move away from the natural presentation? The pictures of #10 don't even look like they are from the same course!

[mike_malone]

 When I look at that old picture of #10 the only thing I am sure of is that it would look nothing like that today if left alone. There would be a natural evolution to those sand areas. Isn't today's version easier to maintain to some level of standardization?

[archie_struthers]

 


Hey Pat I'm getting no bites on the tee shot on six but one of the old pictures appears to make the shot more uphill than today's drive.....I'd venture that if the tee was at the same elevation as the fifth green it would be quite a bit more fun   ...and probably visually striking ,,,,any thoughts   ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

When I look at that old picture of #10 the only thing I am sure of is that it would look nothing like that today if left alone. There would be a natural evolution to those sand areas.

How do you envision the evolution those sand areas in terms of their look today ?
How would # 10 look ?  How would the rest of the golf course look ?

WHY do you state that those sand areas would evolve to look nothing like they do in the picture when ONLY 80 years have gone by ?

And, do you believe, that if the intent was to preserve that look, that the club would have FAILED to do so ?

Isn't today's version easier to maintain to some level of standardization?


I don't know.
But, I do know that the beaches at the Jersey shore seem to be pretty well maintained over the last 80+ years and they're exposed to far more erosive and disfiguring forces courtesy  of Mother Nature