[Patrick_Mucci]

On another thread, someone asked, what I felt was a foolish question.
The question was, and I'm paraphrasing, if you improved a particular hole, would it improve the golf course.
My answer was, and I'm paraphrasing, if you improvened a feature or hole, it would have to improve the golf course.

So, with another recent thread about the TOP 100 courses, and PV being listed as the # 1 course in the U.S.,
I asked myself, what would I alter/change at PV to improve the golf course.  Tree removal is a given, this thread is about features not trees, altough with some changes tree removal might be an inherent part of the change.
On # 12, removing trees from the tee, in the direct sightline of the green would be one such project.

My immediate thought was:

Restore the mound in the 18th green.
In lieu of the mound, a spinelike feature.
Something to tactically and practically divide the green into segments, such that there would be more demand on the approach, recovery and putting.

Crump ALWAYS wanted an internal feature in the 18th green, a feature that would make the approach, recovery and putting more challenging, so certainly, resistance couldn't arise in the form of objecting to the introduction of elements contrary to Crump's design philosophy.

Then, I thought about the 17t fairway and the alleged double fairway or right side fairway.
However, upon viewing current and former aerials, I don't know if a true double fairway ever existed on that hole.
In 1931 photos there's clearly a wing or extended fairway to the right, almost to the edge of the steep dropoff.
This made sense to me since the 9th green goes right to the edge of a steep drop off.
As time went by, the 1940, 1951, 1963, 1965 and 1970 aerials show a little narrowing of that right side fairway.
But, it becomes very noticeable in the 1970 aerial and continues in the 2002, 2006 and 2001 aerials.

So, I would consider restoring the 17th fairway on the right side.

It would seem, that rather than the introduction of new features, that the restoration of old features would be the path for improving PV.

Your thoughts and suggestions regarding the improvement of PV.

[Joel_Stewart]

Take out 1000 trees.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joel,

That was a given from the getgo.

[archie_struthers]

 

TKe out all the trees left on 12 and 13 !    Take out the new bunkers on the top of the hil right on four.....which really limits the angle of attack on the tee shot. 

I'd play the 15th tee from behind the green on 14 , and move the bridge accordingly . Also a safety issue.  The place is awesome  but I'd love those little tweaks!

[Mark McKeever]

Archie,

Removing the trees left of 12 and 13 would allow for all those bunkers to come back into play!

Mark

[Jason Walker]

Pat-

You certainly have many more turns around the 18th green than I do, but I don't think of that green as being easy or flat.  

I've read the posts over the years about the 'mound' or 'pimple' you describe, but for everyday play does that hole need additional challenge?

[archie_struthers]

 

Jason it's arguably one of the easiest putting greens on the course. Great if you need a birdie finish to do something special. The front pin positions are quite hard.

I guess it gets down to a formulaic discussion as to whether the finishing hole needs to be really difficult. My opinion is no, it doesn't.

[JESII]

What does that say about the 7 I made last time around?

[PCCraig]

Chainsaws.

[JMEvensky]

What does that say about the 7 I made last time around?

Bad yardage from the caddie.

[Willie_Dow]

Pat -

When you restore the mound on #18, restore the D/A on #10, and the back to front slope on #5. 

I'm still out on the green at #2 because I've not played it, and my memories of that great hole would probably ask for a restoration.

You and Tom will have to battle out #14,#15,#16, and #17.  There is good thinking developing there.

Willie

[archie_struthers]

 

LOL  Jimmy S .....I've made every possible bad number and more than you on any hole .  That's the beauty of PV , even the innocuous looking holes from yardage perspective can grab you and bite hard ....a really excellent amateur player named Joel Hirsch in Crump Qualifying shot 81 with 16 pars , including an 11 on eight from 95 yards out !

Willie talked to redoing the DA ...certainly the green in the 1970's was way cool and you had to worry about hitting it on the green and spining it back in, or worse putting it into the "aperture" from behind the hole

[JESII]

I bet you have Archie...but only due to time served. I've got some doozies though.


Willie,

I'd be surprised if you could notice the work done on the second green. I disagreed with the idea before I saw it...and can't say I love the idea still, but it's virtually unnoticeable.

[Bill Brightly]

Play a Ryder Cup there.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim S,

The change to # 2 green is noticeable to those who have either ample experience or keen powers of observation with far fewer rounds.

I think the dilema Pine Valley is forced to confront is rooted in the conflict between exceptionally fast greens and reasonable play.

A green like # 5, when very fast, is extremely difficult to putt.  Ditto # 2 with a front hole location, as it's difficult to impossible to stop a downhill putt.

There is a point, or a speed at which PV's greens go from challenging to absurd, the problem is, the fixation with defending par at the green end.  A problem caused at the other end of the hole, on the tee.  If you get above 4 o'clock and 8 o'clock on fast to very fast greens at PV, you're almost dead.

Lou,

Restoring the green/DA on # 10 would be great, but, it would probably kill pace of play.

As Archie related, a terrific golfer hit 16 greens and shot 11 over.

As a medal play course, eventually, all succumb to its challenge at some point in the round, and I suspect that the mid to high handicapper could take huge numbers, often.  Not that a low handicap can't take huge numbers, but, I think they're less prone to it.

The golf course offers a wonderfully diverse challenge, but the continued flattening of the greens to accomodate higher speeds squeezes the distinctive life out of those wonderful greens.

Archie,

Many years ago, before they put the current back tee in on # 15 there was a small penisula, that looked like a tee pad.
You can see it in the 1940, 1951 and 1957 aerials.  It sure looks like a tee.  And, in person, it sure looks man made.
I always felt that someone, at sometime, made that an experimental tee.  As you stand on # 14 green it's at about 11 o'clock if the bottom of the green is 6 and the top 12.  Take a look at it, it seemed like a perfect back tee for the 60's, 70's and 80's.

Jason,

I never said the 18th green was flat.
I don't know where you came up with that.
I said it was "punchbowl" like, certainly, that's not flat.
But, it is very forgiving and allows misplayed, miscalculated or mishit shots to enjoy better results.
Crump felt that the hole needed that feature when HE DESIGNED AND BUILT THE 18TH GREEN.
So, why would you dispute his intentions ?

[Mark Chaplin]

The only picture I have seen of the pimple makes it look far too gimmicky for today's tastes. Just as the stymie went out of fashion surely Mr Crump's bit of fun has as well.

[archie_struthers]

 

Pat we played the tee behind 14 green many times in the evening . Love the way it looks and sets up. . I do believe they have used it occasionally over the years . It used to be the drop for balls that went over the green into the water.

.  Would require a little tweaking to perfect, but would be fabulous. It would improve traffic flow and make it safer also.  You would need to move the bridge across the lake a bit, and would likely piss off some big  snapper turtles that live there, I guess they would understand! In time !

[Anthony Gray]

 Open it up.

[Joe Bausch]

The only picture I have seen of the pimple makes it look far too gimmicky for today's tastes. Just as the stymie went out of fashion surely Mr Crump's bit of fun has as well.

From an article I have, the description as a 'pimple' rather than a mound seems appropriate.  This article indicates it was about 3 1/2 feet high and equal length in diameter.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The only picture I have seen of the pimple makes it look far too gimmicky for today's tastes. Just as the stymie went out of fashion surely Mr Crump's bit of fun has as well.

Mark,

Evidently Coore & Crenshaw didn't think it was too gimmicky for today's tastes as they built an even more pronounced pimple/mound just down the road on the 8th hole at Hidden Creek, a top 100 course, opened in 2002.

[Mark Chaplin]

Pat looks interesting but smaller than the PV pimple and it's a far different proposition on a 278 yard par 4 compared to a 450+ yard par 4. IMHO PV doesn't need final hole trickery to confirm it's status as the world's best course.

[Willie_Dow]

Pat -

What I'm searching for is a reason for pushing up the stimp scale when we could accomplish the objective by more contour on greens.

Are we not pushing the game too far forward when we could be looking back to what the original architects were trying to accomplish?

Willie

[Bill_McBride]

The only picture I have seen of the pimple makes it look far too gimmicky for today's tastes. Just as the stymie went out of fashion surely Mr Crump's bit of fun has as well.

Mark,

Evidently Coore & Crenshaw didn't think it was too gimmicky for today's tastes as they built an even more pronounced pimple/mound just down the road on the 8th hole at Hidden Creek, a top 100 course, opened in 2002.

....and a big one in the 9th green at Friars Head. 

Pat, please arrange a visit to PV for me so I can offer suggestions based on actually having played there!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat looks interesting but smaller than the PV pimple and it's a far different proposition on a 278 yard par 4 compared to a 450+ yard par 4.
Mark,

The pimple at HC is larger than the PV pimple.

Why are you under the impression that the 18th hole plays at 450+ for everybody ?
You're evidently referencing a new back tee that few golfers ever play.
The original and regular back tee is elevated a good 50 feet above the DZ making the playing yardage much, much shorter.
The greens are different with one being more convex and the other being more concave.

Perhaps if you were personally familiar with both holes your opinion might have some credibility

IMHO PV doesn't need final hole trickery to confirm it's status as the world's best course.

Since when is internal contouring "trickery".
If that was the case the second green would have been dispensed with decades ago.

Crump's vision, followed by his design and construction has withstood about a century of scrutiny.
Are you saying that he designed the 18th hole and others with unique greens, like # 2, # 3, # 11 and # 16 incorrectly ?

[Kyle Franz]

Patrick,
Myself and fellow Pinehurst #2 restoration shaper George Waters were having this same discussion a couple weeks back. I think the consensus of our conversation was Pine Valley is pretty well due for a full blooded restoration on most levels. It could use some of the usual touch ups -- particularly some greens margins that have shrunk/been altered over the years.

The closer I've looked at that '25 aerial in Geoff Shackelfords book (and supporting ground shots) the more I think the grassing arrangements of most holes could use some help -- both greens and fairway margins. Their are a number of really good hole locations that have been compromised over time as a result of changes to both. The split fairway version of 17 fairway you described is a great example -- that must have made that front left hole location quite interesting with the alternate approach angle. I suspect re-adding at least part of that thoughtful little landing strip of fairway at the front right corner of 8 green might be worth considering as well. But I think there are also some even more subtle examples in the old photos that would be of equal value. The front grassing arrangement of #3 green for example.

In addition...
1. The bunker detailing has become pretty sterilized in places over the years  -- even by comparison to Tom D's photos in The Confidential Guide 20 years ago. Let alone the photography 80 years ago. 

2. I can't help but think a pretty critical element of the course's original atmosphere is lost with not just the over-abundance of trees, but the lack of open sandscapes throughout the property in general between holes compared to 80 years ago. That's a huge difference in the original character that could stand to be re-established on some level.

At the end of the day Pine Valley is still Pine Valley -- Its a hell of a place! But I think it could use some fairly extensive touch ups in places *with the right architect on board.

PS. I wasn't aware the 18th green had ever been changed... Interesting

Cheers,
Kyle Franz

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()