[John D. Bernhardt]

I enjoy the feel of nature as one plays through tree framed holes without the feel of other golfers on the course. It, in my opinion, is not a Pine Valley issue. Where did it come from and how does it fit into then minimalist approach.

[redanman (Guest)]

Overzealous tree planting on American Parkland courses in the post world war ll era.  It doesn't.

John, have you tried Muir Woods north of SanFrancisco on Highway 1?  

[TEPaul]

John:

I believe I agree with what I think you're saying. I too like SOME golf courses that have holes that are separated by trees.

But once again, I believe that any golf club, as its course  matures and moves into the future, should be mindful of what it was intended to be--the design intent, in other words.

Pine Valley is certainly an excellent example in this way. It appears quite evident that Crump intended Pine Valley's holes to be separated by trees--that he intended that the holes be isolated from one another!

However, if one studies the routing of Pine Valley very carefully it can be seen that Crump likely designed this style into his course. In other words, with a few exceptions the holes are routed in such a way that trees can separate and isolate his holes from one another and those trees can also stay out of his intended shot angles. This is the key distinction of Pine Valley that people should understand. If you really want trees to isolate your holes you should design the course for that--and that takes some "designed separation" in a routing sense. The exceptions at Pine Valley would be a "peak-through" at #2 green and #4 Fairway, #6 fairway and the first part of #7, some of #7 and #8 and also #16 and #17 are close, as is #18 tee and #10 green.

However, many other courses whose holes are routed in such a way that they do not have this "designed hole separation" where the holes are tight against one another, either in parallel or when they "elbow" against each other then there just isn't the room to plant corridors of trees and if it's done it can close the course in and significantly shut down on designed shot angles.

Pine Valley is lucky to be designed this way, although one might wonder if the club has always realized that it is designed this way because in the last few decades trees have started to encroach not only on some shot angles but also to enclose some of Crump's bunkering. Obviously Crump did not  intend to design bunkering within trees. It seems that the club is now countering that evolution and clearing back the trees from some of Crump's intended playable areas (bunkering and open sand). So in a way Pine Valley is lucky to have the best of both--they can have the hole isolation and also the width wthin individual holes--I think because that's the way Crump intended it and designed it!

And to me that is also minimalist because that is what the natural site looked like!

Redanman is right that the "parkland" style is not Pine Valley's style. The "parkland" style, in my opinion, should be groups of trees combined with golf vistas from hole to hole and probably combined with trees as a distant backdrop (and I do mean distant). But you really can't have trees as a distant backdrop with tree lined hole corridors everywhere. I guess you could have it with holes with lots of elevation but that's not my point.

The interesting thing in my area is that I believe that some of the courses around here although originally open farmland were intended to be "parkland" style. I don't think anyone ever told them that though. But I think the key to tell what the course could be style-wise is to simply analyze the routing itself! If the property is small and the holes are tight together, clearly the course was not designed (and routed) to have it's holes enclosed by trees! Merion would be a perfect example!!

But what would be some courses that were designed to accomodate trees in the future although the site may have been open when designed? I think you can very much see this on SOME of the courses of William Flynn! If he had the room he used a hole separation technique (to accomodate future trees that could still be out of the designed shot angles of the holes) by using a design and routing technique called "triangulation"!!

Crump did a bit of triangulation but mostly he had a pretty sizable site that allowed him the opportunity for width or routing separation between the holes and he used it!!

I think the overall message with this issue is what the course was intended to be! Sometimes the designer might have said what he intended it to be--like Augusta, but when he didn't the club just should look very carefully at how the course was designed and for that they have to look very carefully at its routing--it's basic bones, in other words!

[BillV]

I think the routing of Pine Valley would easily allow long vistas with less trees than now exist.  Early photos show how much difference there has been in evolution.  I think the only kind of course that wouldn't benefit from tree removal or thinning of trees are those designed and cut out of woods, treed or shrub, gorse, etc infested land.  

Three dimensional hazards at a site of wind become tedious.  Interesting, the evolution of the American style of golf course architecture has pervaded our society to the extent that my sixth grader's science book lists golf courses as one of the worst places to be in a thundrestorm (All those lightning rods!)

I would like nothing more at Pine Valley than to look out over the course and see other holes.

[TEPaul]

BillV:

I'm familiar with your preference for less trees on a golf course or site and I certainly respect that preference.

However, when it comes to Pine Valley, I think you should take a closer look at the natural site of Pine Valley PREconstruction. For that there are excellent aerial photos in GeoffShac's book "The Golden age of Golf Design" on pges. 53 and 66. For the look of the site PREconstruction one has to look not so much at the golf course but the periphery of the golf course and you can clearly see on those aerials that the periphery (the natural site) is heavily wooded.

Actually when you get on the ground in that general area (even today) it looks very much as you describe (in your post above) the kind of site that WOULD NOT BENEFIT from tree removal as it's treed, shrub, gorse type vegatation. I've also spent quite a bit of time on some other sites out there recently, like Hidden Creek and they are very much the same as Pine Valley likely was back then! Hidden Creek, BTW, is and will be a site with hole isolation, just as Pine Valley was intended to be, as both are an American adaptation of the "heathland" style!

So that is one good reason NOT to maintain Pine Valley as a course where you could see clearly from hole to hole. The other good reason not to do that is that would clearly go against the style and design intent of what Crump intended and wanted there. Crump very clearly stated that he wanted hole isolation at Pine Valley and I believe a club like Pine Valley has every reason to respect the wishes of their original designer--and they very much try to do that as best they know it.

Again, the course did get too treed up in recent decades but the good news is they appear to be on a program to counteract that!

As for the look you're seeing in the early "on ground" and even the early aerials of Pine Valley there is also a very logical explanation for why that was that way that has much to do with the particular style and technique Crump used to route his course! He was a shot-tester, you see, and many of the "clearing lines" you see on some of those early photos were simply never used for golf holes so there is every reason to deduce that he would have wanted to see them back in trees if they were not used in the design or part of the course.

More on the specifics of that later.

[BillV]

Tommy

I have all the Pine Valley books, Geoff's book, I've been in the greenkeeper's shop, every corner of the clubhouse and I still think many less trees with vistas opened up would be better, sorry.

Save me Flynn's green record writing reference, too, please.

Many American Courses have been absolutely ruined by trees.  Probably, Westchester County, New York, is the worst.

[Bill_McBride]

In my humble opinion, trees are great so long as they don't impede playing lines and stay out of the way!  A good example of a course where the trees have grown so much that they impede play is California Club in San Francisco. From the back half of most of the tees, there is a good chance you can clip a tree limb with a well-hit tee shot.  This is not good. A tree strategically located to serve as a turning point in a hole, or one you have to hit over to shorten a risk/reward hole, is great in moderation.  But trees planted too close to the playing lines should be removed or trimmed drastically.

[BillV]

Bill

Guess what?  That's my old club in CA.  

[TEPaul]

BillV:

Let's just say you had a say in how Pine Valley maintained its course.

If it's fairly well documented that Crump himself wanted his holes isolated by trees and you decided (as you said above) that the hole isolation should be removed and the holes should be seen from each other than I should ask you this; What's the difference between that and what Augusta has done by ignoring what the wishes of their designers were?

For you to ignore what the designer wanted and just install your own personal preference, well isn't that the same thing we warn against with various meddling Green Chairman? If you don't think so then how would it be different?

[Matt_Ward]

Gentlemen:

Less is indeed more ... nuf said.

[John_D._Bernhardt]

It is funny how many great courses, Olympic and SFGC were built with very few mature trees. Yet both today are tree lined to different degrees. Olympic may be in need of serius tree removal now or in the near future. I am talking about nice mature trees  and landforms which allow for some separation and backdrops. To me this is well within minimalist thinking and frankly allows for a more natural feeling and relationship with the land ie the course. I do agree the trees need to kept back or you will have a problem very soon.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John, Bill V, TEPaul,

Many classic courses were built before two major events that impacted golf courses.  The Depression, and World War II.

Many courses were built on farmland or treeless land.
Old photos of Baltusrol, Winged Foot, Garden City, Preakness Hills, show very few trees.

Is it possible that tree's natural reproductive efforts, aided by the winds and wildlife, plus a lack of financial resources for their removal, their slow, insidious way of invading a property, combined with some club's desire for seperation, resulted in the bowling alley affect that exists today.

Is it LIKELY, that a Scot, would design an early golf course in America, visualizing tree lined holes.

One of the most impressive results achieved by removing trees is in evidence at GCGC.  The results are almost universally hailed, yet over the years, their numbers and density grew, unabated, defeating the early design and impact of the WIND upon the golf course.

If you want isolation, stay in your attic or basement.  

[Bill_McBride]

BillV, I used to work with a guy, Bob Johnson, who is a member.  Have played the course several times and love the routing. The trees were a problem.  I really loved the way the long par 4 holes were downhill and shorter par 4s uphill. The par 3 by the clubhouse has a wicked back to front slope. Last time there I drilled a 5 wood about 20 feet behind the pin and could not get the putt to stop less than 20 feet below the hole!  I understand they have done a fair amount of work which included some major tree removal or pruning.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Look at your history of GCGC and what the Hempstead Plain looked like pre, during and just after construction and then look at the early pictures pre, during and just after construction of Pine Valley! Do you see a similarity or a distinct difference? And I'm not just talking about the golf course, I'm talking about the natural site! Similarity or difference?

[redanman (Guest)]

(By BillV)

Bill

Glad you enjoy CalClub.  Only the soil and its poor drainage hold it back.  Trees are apparently still coming out, so maybe the soil will improve.  Teh re-do of teh first few by RTJ Sr. fits in seamlessly, doesn't it?  Always a pleasure to go back to play it.

Patrick

I hope you didn't mis-interpret my posts, but I would like nothing better to happen to most tree lined courses that were originally built on pastures by our great masters to revert that way.  MAybe we can pray for Huntingdon Valley type tornadoes!

GIVE ME VISTAS OVER ISOLATION CORRIDORS !  my new battle cry.

[redanman (Guest)]

And no, Patrick, I don't believe a Scot would plant a friggin' tree fer chrissake!

[Mark_Fine]

Bill,
Why do you want vistas?  I thought you are the one that could care less about the ocean at Pebble and the views afforded by many of the so called great courses.
Mark

[Lou Duran]

TEPaul:

Is design intent paramount, or is it making the course the most enjoyable for the highest number of its members/players?  In the case of Pine Valley, you have been able to ascertain Crump's intent.  Is the intent of most other architects for their courses that well thought-out, defined and documented?  Did they not expect their courses to evolve through maturation and updating for techonological (ball and clubs) advancements?  Are the classic courses to be maintained as museum pieces or should they be modified at the discretion of their owners, hopefully in a thoughtful way?

[TEPaul]

Lou:

That's very good point you make! Of course golf courses  mature and I see nothing wrong with the club making those courses as enjoyable as possible for their members.

However, I'm talking about Pine Valley here and also ANGC comparatively as to it's original design intent. These two are two of the world's most famous golf courses and likely also two examples of some of the world's best arcthitecture. As such, yes, I think that understanding and adhering to the original designer's intent is a good and necessary thing! One appears to have done that or to be doing that and the other appears not to have done that or to be doing that. But both memberships seem to be happy with the way things have turned out. Personally, I admire Pine Valley and its membership more than I do ANGC. Sorry about that, but that's just the way I feel.

As for other courses, I suppose it matters more on some than on others. For my own golf course it has become somewhat enclosed by trees over the last number of decades and as such many of the old designed shot angles and options have been shut down or compromised.

As for the membership they didn't really appear to understand that until recently, now most of them do and we are going to do something about it. I think that's a good thing and we studied the routing and the architecture of the golf course very carefully to get to this point. That's a good thing too. I have no idea what Ross would think of that but it would seem from everything I know about him and have read about him that he would likely endorse what we're about to do too!

[redanman (Guest)]

Mark

I want long views because tree-lined corridors are claustrophobic and un-golfy.  Most importantly, they limit the effect of the wind.

Over-rating golf courses because of the Pacific Ocean, Fog and Cypress trees is another matter.  Quite a leap there fellow.  

[TEPaul]

That's definitely a well known and basic rap on trees that they limit the effects of the unfettered wind. But I will guarantee you there is no unfettered wind as complex as standing on that high tee above #14 Pine Valley when it's really blowing when trying to hit that green! It seems to be blowing every which way to Sunday and probably is!

[Mark_Fine]

Bill,
There is definitely wind to deal with at Pine Valley and I have to say I've never felt claustrophobic there either!  Have you?

My favorite golf courses are open rock hard wind swept links designs but I still love a course like the Cascades or Forest Highlands!  Variety in the designs of the playing fields for the game is one of the things that makes golf so interesting.  Can you imagine if they just clear cut every piece of property such as these and then built the golf course?  

Over treed courses are one thing and there are many that have this problem.  But just because you can't see the other holes doesn't always mean the holes are poor and "un-golfy".  

By the way does it matter what the "long views" you talk about are?  Would a Burger King behind #1 green at Sand Hills impact your opinion of the hole vs. the distant sand dunes?  Neither are part of the "golf course" right  
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The topography is vastly different, the geological history of the land is different.  At one time the Hempstead Plain was thought to be the largest of a certain type of desert east of the Mississippi.

I'll have to research photos pre 1936 which do show mini-forests, (for lack of a better word) in pockets on the golf course.  Since 1936 tree and shrub infestation altered the look, feel and play of the course, becoming so intrusive that shots from the fairway to the green were blocked by tall trees.
Thankfully, most are gone and the improvement to the course immense.

The photo of Pine Valley, in the big room, next to the exit to the  parking lot reminds me of some 1936 photos of GCGC where trees are at a minimum.

I don't know what Crump's intent was, to keep it free of trees and shrubbery, or to let them grow at random.  I would favor the look of the photo in the big room.

My recollection is that this tree clearing process started at Shinnecock, in preparation for the OPEN, was adopted by
NGLA, and with those two, has sprouted up everywhere..

Just look at the Picture Steve Sayers posted of LuLu, and ask yourself if you'd prefer it then, or as it is now.

Trees have a place on some courses, but on those where they were mostly absent when built, I see no need to add them, irrespective of what Dr. Katz may say.

Just ask messrs, Steele, McCullough, Poulan, Black and Decker

[TEPaul]

Mark:

Excellent post! Very balanced and reasonable. The diversity of golf courses (and trees) is what it's all about--I couldn't agree with you more--well stated!

Pat:

I'm not talking about what GCGC looked like in 1936, decades after it was built. I'm talking about what the Hempstead Plain looked like before and during the time GCGC was built. I'm assuming that it was devoid of trees or it wouldn't have been called a "plain". And I've also carefully read the GCGC history book which you very kindly gave me! And I'm talking about what Pine Valley looked like when Crump found the site and began to build the course. And as you said the two sites were vastly different regarding trees at that time! And that's my point!

And if you're not familiar with what Crump intended concerning hole isolation at Pine Valley then I suggest you read both Shelly's and Finegan's books when they both reported what Crump's friends Carr, Perrin, Smith and Baker said about what Crump intended that way! They spent the time with him in the years he spent out there building the golf course and what those friends said he told them he wanted is good enough for me.

If you look closely at the aerials of the course at that time you will see the trees that separate the holes although they may have been small at that time. Some of the other openness you see is partially the routing clearing lines Crump used to experiment with various routing options that he never used for his holes. There is no reason to conclude Crump would have wanted to keep those clearings open when he wasn't going to use them for golf holes. If you want me to point out to you where those unused routing clearings and lines are on those old aerials I would be happy to!

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Not sure I read what you said about GCGC in 1936 correctly. But all I'm talking about is what the site looked like just before and during the time it was created.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()