[Patrick_Mucci]

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   ?

Archie,

When I first played PV in the early 60's, the tee shot at # 6 was very intimidating, the carry far more heroic than today.

The line, left of the tree/fir was prefered by most.

I agree, a lower tee box would present a more intimidating tee shot, and require a better tee shot.

While we've all benefited from modern day equipment, it has dimished the architectural quality and demands of many features and holes, and I think # 6 is one of them.

That tee shot, continued with the pattern of visually and physically difficult tee shots that golfers faced, especially golfers enjoying their first experience at PV

[Patrick_Mucci]

I greatly prefer the old look as well. The difference in the look is VERY dramatic.

Michael,

I agree, it's VERY, VERY dramatic, and intimidating to the golfer.
It has an untamed look to it.

Why do you think there was such a move away from the natural presentation?


My guesses are:
There was a trend toward isolation/seperation in golf and Pine Valley might have perfected the concept
Tree planting gained favor in American golf
The very name of the club, "Pine Valley" almost demands that Pine trees surround the golf course and individual holes

The pictures of #10 don't even look like they are from the same course!

Agreed.

And, I can guarantee you that the course is substantially different today, then it was in the early 1960's.

I like the 1960's and EARLIER course far more than today's version.

[mike_malone]

 Pat,

   If the intent was a wild and unmaintained look one assumes nature will have its way. How does one maintain an unmaintained look ?


















/

[JESII]

Pat,

At some point you've actually got to play the golf course...and someone has to mow the grass...

Expanding the tree corridors would escalate Pine Valley visual intimidation value tremendously but letting the sand run wild would only cause headaches for everyone involved.




Archie,

Any tee shot increases in challenge when it is all of the sudden uphill, don't you think? How about letting the fairway run out into the waste in front of the 7th tee?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

   If the intent was a wild and unmaintained look one assumes nature will have its way. How does one maintain an unmaintained look ?




Mayday,

Simple, you DON'T plant trees lining every hole and you don't permit underbrush to gain a foot hold in the expanses of sand.

It's not that difficult.















/

[archie_struthers]

 


Patrick , some of the issues with trees are surely  maintenance based , as without vegetation many of the exposed sand areas would be horribly impacted by the flash storms that occur in the area on many of those hot summer days.  It's really painstaking work to rebuild the faces of the bunkers after one of the downpours , and for this reason the 17th hole was changed in the early 80's
The greens side bunker in front was always washing out , as the sand had been flashed almost to the top of the green in front...
the ensuing wash outs were awful and interestingly enough we lost the occasional ball under the lip of the bunker ...typically on semi skulls from the non -Crump level players  ...The first time we lost one there I was totally mystified as to where the ball was , and then an older caddy ...if memory serves either Cappy (RIP)  or the ubiquitous  Elmer Larsen  (RIP) stuck his whole arm under the lip , and produced not one, not two but three pellets. one being the one struck by my man ( thanks  men))   now the grass extends almost to the ground on 17

without anchoring vegetation there could be some serous issues in getting the course open quickly after a storm..

this being said , perhaps tree cutting / clearing on the periphery would not only make the course more difficult ,  which would be ok   here but  would slow down pace of play ,  another consideration we need to think of

you would open up some fabulous  vistas to other holes  .... these old pics are fabulous , but a return to this state would be a huge huge commitment of time and resources IMHO

assume the trees are removed ....the  severe slopes such as # 8 to  #15  would likely need lots of native grasses to be established so as to preclude mudslides to #15 green

?  would this look  out of place at the "Valley"   maybe maybe not  


...also let's not forget we are in NJ worse in the Pinelands of NJ , where any impacts to the natural drainage basins by an act of man may cause serious collateral damage to the defiler

most important to the discussion ....huge tree clearing seems to  fly in the face of what I have always heard was George Crump's intent to design 18 holes in splendid isolation from the others



the club has cleared windrows over time to allow air to move from fairway to fairway in order to improve the turf quality and hopefully prevent some fungal diseases that are always an issue with the Poa Annua greens, which are under lots of disease pressure  given the heat and humidity that exists  at Pine Valley ....it is hot , sometimes oppressively so in the region as you well know

An interesting debate  this , one I'm sure has been bandied about by the lords of the realm ....and by many of us


 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick , some of the issues with trees are surely  maintenance based , as without vegetation many of the exposed sand areas would be horribly impacted by the flash storms that occur in the area on many of those hot summer days.

Archie,

I don't agree with that.
The golf course survived for many, many, many years without substantive overgrowth, vegatative or arboreal.

If you look at chronological aerial photos from the early years through the 50's you'll notice that vast expanses of the sand areas remained.  It's only in the last 50+ years that the golf course became overgrown to the extent that the overgrowth interfered with play and overtook many of the features, especially bunkers.  Holes # 2, 12, 15 and 17 were perfect examples of that.   

It's really painstaking work to rebuild the faces of the bunkers after one of the downpours , and for this reason the 17th hole was changed in the early 80's
The greens side bunker in front was always washing out , as the sand had been flashed almost to the top of the green in front...
the ensuing wash outs were awful and interestingly enough we lost the occasional ball under the lip of the bunker ...typically on semi skulls from the non -Crump level players  ...The first time we lost one there I was totally mystified as to where the ball was , and then an older caddy ...if memory serves either Cappy (RIP)  or the ubiquitous  Elmer Larsen  (RIP) stuck his whole arm under the lip , and produced not one, not two but three pellets. one being the one struck by my man ( thanks  men))   now the grass extends almost to the ground on 17

Archie, I would examine the cause and effect.
Isn't the real culprit the deisgn of the 17th green, and its inability to deflect water away from the front of the green "?
Isn't that an inherent design defect ?

without anchoring vegetation there could be some serous issues in getting the course open quickly after a storm..

This is POROUS SANDY SOIL, not clay based soil, hence runnoff drainage would seem to be a localized issue and NOT a systemic issue.

this being said , perhaps tree cutting / clearing on the periphery would not only make the course more difficult ,  which would be ok   here but  would slow down pace of play ,  another consideration we need to think of

you would open up some fabulous  vistas to other holes  .... these old pics are fabulous , but a return to this state would be a huge huge commitment of time and resources IMHO

I don't think they'll need to run a charity ball to raise the funds 

assume the trees are removed ....the  severe slopes such as # 8 to  #15  would likely need lots of native grasses to be established so as to preclude mudslides to #15 green

If you'll look at page 63 in Geoff Shackleford's book, "The Golden Age of Golf Design", you'll see that as of 1938, that area had ample vegetation to stabilize the slope between # 8 and # 15.  If you compare that photo to a current photo you'll see how invasive the trees have become.

?  would this look  out of place at the "Valley"   maybe maybe not  


...also let's not forget we are in NJ worse in the Pinelands of NJ , where any impacts to the natural drainage basins by an act of man may cause serious collateral damage to the defiler

Archie, I think that's a stale argument.
PV has been there since 1918 and I don't think it's caused any collateral damage to the area

most important to the discussion ....huge tree clearing seems to  fly in the face of what I have always heard was George Crump's intent to design 18 holes in splendid isolation from the others

I keep hearing about Crump's ALLEGED intent but have NEVER seen written evidence from Crump's hand that this was what he intended.

Whenever certain things are done, I seem to hear, "this was Crump's intent", yet to date, noone has produced written evidence to substantiate their position

the club has cleared windrows over time to allow air to move from fairway to fairway in order to improve the turf quality and hopefully prevent some fungal diseases that are always an issue with the Poa Annua greens, which are under lots of disease pressure  given the heat and humidity that exists  at Pine Valley ....it is hot , sometimes oppressively so in the region as you well know

I  don't think there's any doubt that the trees are both an asset and a liability.
I happen to think that they're more of a liability.
And as such, would like to see the golf course selectively returned to its configuration circa 1926-1938

An interesting debate  this , one I'm sure has been bandied about by the lords of the realm ....and by many of us

[archie_struthers]

 


Quite a fabulous look do the old photos have, and although I elucidated some arguments as to the why , they are not necessarily my arguments .   Certainly the bunkering around the greens have been stabilized by vegetative growth, and having been on holes   10
& 17 in innumerable showers/ thunderstorms the washouts were  real and seemed to trigger substantial change in the early in the early eightiess  .....

 In an interesting paradox superintendent Dick Bator exposed acres of sand that had become overgrown , particularly on holes three six and thirteen  waste areas while simultaneously  growing in the aforementioned grassing on #17  and  the collar that now protects the "De vil's Asshole" on #10.   Both in my opinion were to protect the sand walls...there was also some serious rivetting of bunkers that were thinning or washing out during heavy rains

  it was way cool when someone could putt it into the DA when the pin was front right on ten green  ! Still don't like the change that occurred strategically...you could almost smell the fear of  the aperture when womeone was putting to that front pin and the greens were fast

Bator had real influence , the golf course re-emerged during his tenure....


 As to Crump's original intent , I believe it was fairly well chronicled in both Warner Shelly's book and then by James Finegan again in his historical review....it seems consistent with all the talk of the oldest members during  my tenure at the club,  perhaps someone out there has better proof's ...a better question might be if his intent is completely sacrosanct as there were others involved in the construction

 golf continues to be the keynote to all that is Pine Valley....not politics or money , we might be surprised what the future holds and you just might get your wish...here's to many repeat visits for all of us

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Archie,

I played # 10 prior to the addition of the lip to divert surface water away from the DA.

Not only could you putt into it, but, balls hit out of it, onto the green, often rolled back into it.

Remember, the DA wasn't an original feature, it was added subsequently, and since the surface water from the green drained where it was located, it suffered in terms of Mother Nature and maintainance.

I don't have a problem with stabilizing a steep slope by planting grass, but, I do have a problem with allowing unbridled growth.
I recall being in the bunkers to the right of # 13 green and having my swing impeded by branches intruding into the bunkers.
Certain that was never Crump's intent.

In a thread on the 12th hole, Jamie Slonis posted chronological aerials that depicted the invasive nature of the trees and undergrowth and how they altered the look and play of the hole.

Pine Vallley suffered for years from benign neglect.
One would hope that those days are over and that many of the lost features will be restored and that the trees will be thinned out.

As to Finnegan's recollections, TEPaul and others already identified discrepencies in his accounts, so I'm not willing to take a third party's word.

Where did CRUMP write about his intentions ?  That's what I want to see.

Absent Crump's written word, we have to go with what CRUMP designed and built.

His intent is clearly manifested in what he conceptualized, designed and built, not what others allege his intentions were.

Bator's contributions were significant.

As to what the future holds, no change should be contemplated without reviewing the photos circa 1920's and 1930's

[Kirk Gill]

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

Patrick, I get what you're saying here, but is each individual dune at the jersey shore in exactly the same position it was in 80 years ago? Do they have to maintain a high quality grass surface at the Jersey shore?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()