[TEPaul]

And also, it is amazing what the LuLu site looked like just after construction. Gulph Mills looked the same and so many of those early courses around here and elsewhere looked like that. It was generally because they were farms and almost completely open because of that.

Unfortunately, I've almost never heard of an architect (in those days) remark how the course should handle trees or how they should plant trees (or not) at anytime in the future.

That's the problem. To me these types of course are good candidates for the "parkland" style, unless of course they do not have the proper amount of property, the routing (or design), basically the designed width between the holes to accomodate any trees. If these types of tightly routed courses plant trees then the trees start to compromse the design real quick! A good example of that is Merion--it's on just a little over 100 usable acres for golf and so they can't really have trees between the holes without compromising the holes and the design and they never really have.

But if you have an original farmland course that has lots of designed width between the holes with its routing then you might get away with trees--but still with even the width, personally, I wouldn't want to see any more than the "parkland" style!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

GCGC was not a tree less site in the late 1800's early 1900's. but I doubt it was as densely populated with trees as Clementon, N.J..,  If you look through the book, you will see plenty of mature, specimen trees in the early photos.  
The 1897 diagram shows substantial tree and shrub areas

I don't think seperation was the intent at GCGC, I just think it happened slowly until it reached the point where the trees became invasive to play.

With respect to LuLu and other early courses, I would think, with 20 players on the course, safety was a minor issue, but with 150 players on the course, concerns were heightened, and in some instances, trees were introduced as the solution.

As time distanced the game from its Scottish roots, openness became less popular or less remembered, and the desire for isolation, seperation, from the other golfers on the course more desireable, and the method employed to achieve that was the planting of trees.

Today, a new fad is responsible for the addition of more trees to golf courses.  Beautification committees are planting flowers, shrubs and trees at an alarming pace, with few people visualizing the impact on maintainance budgets, and playability in the future.

How sad, that we look back in admiration at these old photos of courses like LuLu and many others.  What has taken 70-80 years to do, may never be undone, although there are, almost immediate remedies.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I wouldn't be too sad if I were you! A lot of these early courses are starting to do some very good restorations and they are addressing the tree problems we're referring to in the process! Some of them are doing it in different ways and to different degress but almost all are getting the trees out of the old designed shot angles to a large extent.

LuLu is not going to return its course to the look of that aerial and personally I don't think they should--they have other issues to consider on their course that some trees can address. Other courses like Oakmont are going almost all the way back near the beginning with their tree removal.

But the treeing up of American classic golf courses is beginning to be addressed---not exactly at flood-tide--but it's beginning to be addressed far more than 10-20-30-40 years ago! The list of the courses that have done it, that are doing it and are planning to do it is impressive!

There are some exceptions that are still going in the wrong direction, unfortunately, like Augusta!

[BillV]

I see the thought police is at work again deleting posts.

Mark

You'll never hear me call a hole poor or even mediocre at pine Valley.

#10 before the current tree removal was claustrophobic.  Compare the pictures in Finnegan's new book vs. Pine valley Chronicle vs. early photos in the clubhouse.  One example, others are there.

It's like Victoria National, the long view back up to the 14th tee from 15 green vs the usual views of gunch.  Which do you prefer?  Framing and isolation need to be like spice. a little is good, a lot ruins the cookies (Christmas similie HoHoHoHoHo)

Nothing will convince me that Splendid Isolation of each hole is the best way to present Pine Valley, just as the manicured Belfair West #13-15 "Pine Valley Wasteland Zen Garden" is not the way to clean up the Hell's Half Acre and forced carry areas at Pine Valley.

Everyone wants to compare their new exclusive course to Pine Valley as #1, but if Pine Valley loses what makes it Pine Valley, it won't be Pine Valley anymore (D-oh) .  Pine Valley is supposed to be a handicap man's nightmare that can be played with quality golf, not an 18 handicapper's  "experience".  That's what has made it what it is.
  
I don't believe, based upon what I have read and seen that each hole unto its own, lined by dense trees was the original intent.

[TEPaul]

BillV:

Your remark about dense trees and tons of them between the holes at Pine Valley is getting closer to the mark. That thought is much of the latitude about the routing design of Pine Valley. The course does not need to have dense corridors of trees creating isolation and also getting in amongst the old bunkering and the shot angles designed by Crump.

In recent years that overgrowth has happened but as you know they are starting to clear back! But the course is very fortunate that they can clear those hole corridors back much more than most realize and still maintain their hole isolation (one hole from the other).

That's the thing for you to keep in mind. If your suggesting that Pine Valley should remove their trees entirely from some of the wide SEPARATIONS between holes so they lose that isolation and do things like expose #1 and #2 and #2/#3 and #4 and on and on then you are barking up the wrong (tree), my friend. That would also start exposing various houses and other things that do not need to be exposed.

Much of the clearing you see in the old photos has to be looked at closely to understand what it was back then and why it isn't there now. Be more than happy to talk to you about that.

You may have read some things about Pine Valley but it seems you've missed what Crump intended about the hole isolation. The various execptions to the hole isolation like #10 and #18 are well known and have been restored to original. If you do know what he intended or come to know what he intended and continue to say that doesn't matter to you and that you still recommend that the trees be cleared away and the holes exposed to each other, then that's fine too, I guess, but I would take care about advocating that if you happen to be back at Pine Valley!! You will not get a warm reception at Pine Valley with that recommendation and you would not have gotten one from Crump either!

[Willie_Dow]

A point overlooked here is the type of tree, the ornamental characteristic, if you will, and its purpose.
For example, if you were to play Pine Valley today, 12/20, you would be amazed at what you could see through the trees vs what you saw last summer.  
Compare that to white pines which have grown too tall, and no longer serve the intended purpose, as a screen for example, blocking the noise and view from a road or a fence at a boundary.  Wouldn't a lower growing black pine or scrub pine be more suitable?  Proper choice gives character to that course, and proper location defines its purpose.

[BV]

Tommy Paul

Separation and isolation are quite distinctly different, agreed.

Isolation, which I neither like nor endorse is what you hear so many folks like about the Valley, where the separation was intended, I agree as it increases the purgatory, decreasing the instant recoverability-THAT which should be at Pine Valley.


Pine Valley is supposed to be hard fer chrissake, not a jungle in which  to lose all your balls!  One of the most fun things in golf is the recovery shot.

[Patrick_Mucci]

BV,

Universally, I have never seen a ball hit into the woods at Pine Valley that the caddy didn't find, that didn't have a good lie with a clear shot back into play, so how bad can the woods be ?  

[TEPaul]

BV:

I would love to respond to your post! Could you rephrase it please so I could understand it?

[BV]

Tommy

I'll call you to explain it if I have to,   but separation is moving things apart without respect to isolating features, whereby the term isolation implies a cocoon-like requirement of physical features in addition to some separation.

Things may be much closer together and still be in isolation where when things are separated the semantic implies distance between.

And I'm not even an attorney!

Two beds in a hospital may be only 6 feet apart, but if a wall is in between they are in isolation (e.g.isolation ward

A wife may have a restraining order against her abusive husband requiring 500 feet of separation (Which may allow completely unobstructed viewing, however!)  The S.O.B. can stand across the street and stare and not violate the order.

  Vocabulary is a fun thing. So respond away.

Patrick

I have seen caddies lose balls at PV in the woods recently, where before that didn't happen. The caddies are still very very top notch, so............  

Thinning of the woods
Any problem with that??

[TEPaul]

BV:

I believe you are starting to see what Crump did (routing-wise) and what he intended hole isolation-wise at Pine Valley. I'm compeletly familiar with the difference between separation and isolation in the dictionary and so are you. I'm not too certain you're completely familiar with the use and/or distinction between separation and isolation in a routng context however.

It's all there in some of the previous posts on this topic but in a nutshell Crump routed many of his holes with a good deal of separation (width between the holes). And for what purpose? So trees could remain between the holes and also not encroach upon the individual hole corridors! In this way the holes corridors could remain wide and trees could also isolate the individual holes!

It is true that in recent decades some of the trees have started to encroach on sides of some of the hole corridors and also into some of the bunkers Crump designed on the sides of the hole corridors. These particular trees can be cut back exposing Crump's original hole corridor widths and his bunkering and this is beginning to be done.

As that happens, the holes, however, will continue to be isolated from each other because of the width Crump designed between them!

This is my point. The holes should return to their original widths and at the same time they will be able to maintain their individual hole isolation!

If you are recommending that all the trees be removed between the holes, exposing them to each other (and thereby losing their hole isolation) then you are recommending something that Crump did not want, did not intend, did not design and will never happen. If that really is what you're recommending I don't believe you have an understanding of Pine Valley, its design or design style!

And forget about losing your ball and the subject of recoverability. Crump designed his hole corridors to be very wide and that includes the fairways and what is just off the fairways, like bunkering and sand!

So tell me, are you or aren't you recommending that Pine Valley remove all the trees between the individual holes thereby losing its hole isolation?

[BV]

Many, not all.  This is reaching absurdidity.

[TEPaul]

Why is it absurdity?

It's a simple enough question and certainly it's ramifications are very interesting architecturally, particularly since this very subject directly involves the so-called "Pine Valley syndrome"! And discussing it can only clarify what it is and isn't and also how and why so many courses misperceive it and consequently tree up and compromise their own courses.

If you know the course and it's design style and evolution so well why don't you tell us exactly which holes you would expose to each other and which ones you wouldn't? I can't see anything remotely absurd about that--it's also specific instead of a general and vague remark and that's also better!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

If I understand BV he is talking in degrees, not extremes,
is that correct BV ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Maybe BV is talking in degrees, but how does that translate into examples of hole isolation or lack of it? If he knows the golf course then why doesn't he cite some examples of the holes and where he feels isolation should be removed or preserved? What's more accurate and interesting, in your opinion, generalities or specifics?

[BV]

I have understood Pine valeyfor a long time now.

I don't have the intimate level of knowledge that you have of details (Which is more than most members), but that doesn't discount my opinion, nor do I need to defend it with specific examples.  I believe it is over-treed, I don't want to see it as a treeless wasteland as that is not the environment in which it exists.

BVut if you insist on examples, one little one, probably all I am capable of, if you could see more of holes 1-4 from holes 1-4, it would improve the ambiance, air flow, views and do nothing to playability in the opinion of my know-nothing pea-brain.

REmoval of many of the trees inside the bunker line of #2 is a good example.

Just look at the ingrowth of trees at Huntingdon valley "C" nine since the course was abandoned.  Was the 5th hole? par 4 better before or after the tornado? ? ? ? ? ? ?

[TEPaul]

BV;

Thanks for the specific example of what you mean by removing trees. Can't say I agree with your example of 1-4 but so what if I don't agree? The triangle between #1-#2-#4 is very large and the vast majority of it has been heavily treed from Day One! If they removed all the trees in there now they would expose Mel Dickenson's house among other things!

I'm sure not saying I wouldn't remove some trees at Pine Valley and it doesn't appear they're saying that either. I like the "peak through" between #2 green and the top of #4 fairway and I would love to see enough trees removed along the right side tee shot on #1  and behind #2 green to return it to a "skyline" look from the approach in the fairway! I would like to see some trees removed around the bunkering on both sides of the green on #5 and lots removed from the inside of the dogleg on #6. Some trees on the right side mid-hole #8 and definitely #9 needs some tree removal particularly on the right side and down by the green for the right green.

That would allow some idiot like me to try to draw a ball into a totally fade oriented green!! Love to see trees removed from the right of #11 and most definitely the trees all along the left of #12 exposing its mid hole fairway bunkering and also exposing the green to the tee again--maybe even the back tee! Like to see some trees removed to the left of #13 green exposing it's bunkering more. And certainly on #15 on the hillside on the left on the approach to the green exposing bunker that's up on the hill. I think it would be an awesome and risky option to try to fade the ball around that hill and onto the green.

And the mother of all tree removal would be to restore the old alternate fairway on #17!!! that would be a lot of trees and care would need to be taken not to expose anything obnoxious.

If that were done there would be no trees in the old shot angles except the lone tree on the right on the drive on #4 but that is a wonderful tree to keep. I also like the trees that block the approach on #11 a little if you hit your ball too far left and on #13 that tree line down at the end of the fairway on the right creates some very sophisticated strategy on that hole.

Interestingly, if all this was done it would not affect the hole isolation one iota and that I think is the way Crump intended it and would likely make him happy if he could see his old shot angles and bunkering reexposed!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul,

The only tree removal I'd add to your list is the ones behind the 9th green.  What a tremendous skyline green that would be, and there are even old, abandoned bunkers behind that green on the downslope that would possibly prevent an overcooked approach from rolling 50 yards and  finding the 18th fairway!

However, if a ball wandered down there, just give the "incoming" players the right of way like they do on The Old Course, and things should work just fine.  Can you imagine the recovery shot that would produce?

[Mike_Cirba]

"the only tree removal I'd add to your list "is" the ones behind"

Ok...it's late, and proper grammar has obviously escaped me!  

[Paul_Turner]

Here an interesting photo (the 8th) for comparison.  No doubt in my mind wich is the more impressive.

[BillV]

But Paul,

In the second photo the Splendid Isolation is GONE!  You can actually (likely) see 6 and 7 from many a spot on 8.  Not to mention 9 and maybe 5! How about 11 and 12? ? ?  

[TEPaul]

Not so fast BV! See those things you can see behind #8 and to the left of #8? They're called trees and they are about 25ft tall! The second photo is clearly late fall or winter and therefore the comparison to the later photo is not real accurate.

Also if you're looking at GeoffShac's book and the early aerials when you mention the openness between #11-#12-#15 or even particularly on the extremely wide body of #13 you are seeing routing and design clearing lines that were experimented with by Crump and clearly never used for the type of hole(s) he settled on!

That last remark, in my opinion, is the real key to understanding the evolutionary creation of Pine Valley!!

There is no doubt in the opinion of both of us that Pine Valley's trees started a few decades ago to encroach on the inside perimeters of Crump's holes and their perimeter design of some bunkers and sand, but again the club appears to be clearing back in that regard!

But the single fact to keep in mind is that Crump wanted isolation between the holes--according to those who were there with him during the creation and he said so in not vague terms. And those "remembrances" were what the "1921 (completion) Committee worked off of with Hugh Alison to finish the golf course.

I know you don't favor trees on a golf course, and to a large degree I agree with that at most golf courses that WERE NOT designed with trees as part of their "style". But with Pine Valley particularly your suggestions are counter to Crump's wishes and that doesn't cut it with me--at least at Pine Valley.

You might just as well forget about seeing Hidden Creek too because it is designed in the same "site specific American heathland" style as Pine Valley and it has about the same style of wide hole corridors combined with hole to hole isolation accomplished by indigenous trees!

Someday hopefully you will come to realize that "one treeless style" does not fit all architecture but it doesn't look like that realization will be coming anytime soon.

[Paul_Turner]

No way is the contrast between those two photos just down to seasonal changes.  

The top one is from the late 60s, the bottom from the 20s.  

[TEPaul]

Paul:

I didn't say it was JUST down to seasonal changes I said it's not real accurate because of that. Plus if Crump didn't want trees behind #8 presumably there wouldn't be any there.

Another thing to keep in mind at a site such as Pine Valley is most people think originally the site was naturally just pine trees like maybe some sites in the northwest. That's not true now and it wasn't true then! You have to see a site like Hidden Creek for an understanding of the way Pine Valley was at creation--there are a number of types of trees naturally.

That might very well be a subject for another discussion because over the decades Pine Valley obviously has planted numerous pine trees simply to accomplish the isolation between holes that they believe is the style of Pine Valley and also the intention of Crump. In that vein it might be important to remember just how important the use and concept of Pine Valley was for "winter golf" which was its initial inspiration!

I think you're assuming that I'm advocating the encroaching effect you see in the more recent photo--I am not! What I am advocating is understanding both how Pine Valley was designed to factor in the use of trees as a hole to hole isolating design and golf course without having those trees encroach on the very wide design features of the individual holes themselves.

Somehow I'm getting the feeling that those who really don't like trees on any golf course are as obdurate in accepting the fact of trees on some designs as those that want to put trees all over every golf course despite the fact (and failing to understand it) that some golf courses were clearly designed not to have trees on them, or at the very least to have trees on them in a "parkland" style and not simply corridors of encroaching trees.

To me the deal is in understanding particular courses and also that the interest is in the sometimes vast differences in architecture and its styles which clearly, sometimes, can involve the proper use of trees!

It's not just Pine Valley either. BV mentioned that a quick moving tornado a few years ago wiped out all the trees on a stretch of the "C" nine at Huntingdon Valley. He believes that made the holes that are now treeless much better. Again, he is not considering the fact that William Flynn very much designed those holes and their strategies to include the use of trees!

BV can certainly be of the opinion that trees don't belong on any golf course but to me that is not taking into account what the designer intended to do! BV obviously likes the treeless holes better when one Linc Roden, who BTW understands William Flynn as well as anyone, was devastated by the effects of that tornado on those holes.

I'm not saying I like trees or I don't like trees on a golf course either--what I am saying is I admire the man or the club that takes the time and has the understanding to determine what the designer intended for that particular golf course.

[Paul_Turner]

For my tastes I prefer the look more open look than the separate one.  I like at least some open views.  Crump wanted isolation, but for my tastes, I think that was a mistake, much like Colt's decision to plant trees at Sunningdale Old.  The trees don't really encroach there either, but the most inspiring parts of that course (and Sunningdale New for that matter) are the few broad vistas that remain.  (For those who have played there, wouldn't the view from the 10th be truly awesome if the trees were decimated down the left.)

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()