How would you improve Pine Valley, the # 1 course ?

[Sean_A]

"Instead of trying to argue with me just to argue with me, try a new tactic.  THINK ....................then post"

Sound advice from our resident maths expert. 

Does anybody have a picture of this long gone pimple?  Its sounds an interesting feature.  Is the current green more or less the same size?

Ciao

[Michael George]

Lesson learned from the recent posts:

Don't mess with Patrick Mucci's knowledge of Pine Valley history.  Wow!!  It is significantly more than I learned from reading "Pine Valley - The Chronicle".

[DMoriarty]

"Instead of trying to argue with me just to argue with me, try a new tactic.  THINK ....................then post"

Sound advice from our resident maths expert. 

Does anybody have a picture of this long gone pimple?  Its sounds an interesting feature.  Is the current green more or less the same size?

Ciao

Here is photo patrick recently posted on another thread . . .

[Sean_A]

Thanks David.  Do you know haw far the pimple is from the edge of the green?

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

I don't. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

I think the green is in the vicinity of 11,070 sq/ft, but it's also got a fairly pronounced punchbowl like quality to it, and the area left of the green tends to kick the ball toward the green as well.

I think one would be hard pressed to state that the green ISN'T a forgiving green.

I know that the mound was controversial and like many controversial features at numerous clubs you have factions wanting their removal and factions lobbying to retain the feature.

It seems to me, that subsequent to Crump's death, that the course, as he had completed it, was almost sacrosanct.

Hence, if you wanted to remove a feature that Crump conceptualized, designed, built and retained until his death, how would you go about it in terms of popularizing the alteration ?

Simple, you'd have some declare that Crump always intended to remove it.
And that would give you the "anointing/blessing" necessary to remove it.

Crump knew the dire need for an internal feature on that green.
He understood that internal feature's function, which apparently some on this site don't understand.
It was a differentiator.
Remember, Pine Valley wasn't designed for the average golfer, it was specifically designed for the championship golfer.
Crump understood that and that's why he conceptualized, designed and built that mound, to challenge the championship golfer on the course's final hole.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

David Moriarty,

I should have stated, six CALENDAR year's

[archie_struthers]

 

Quite a picture of the "pimple" , it really is wild looking.

If anything , I believe 18 has become easier due to the great length achieved by modern golfers . In that it is one of the straightest holes at PV , the angle of the tee shot isn't paramount like on #'s 1 , 4 , 6, 11, 13 .  Carrying the initial gronkel was no doubt a challenge in 1915 , which it isn't in 2012' or even 1980.  For this reason the new back tee on this hole is the best addition of all . The green tends to repel rather than gather . As shots without height tend to kick hard right . I'm guessing hitting a 9 iron or wedge to this green wasn't in Crump's thought process in designing the green , but trajectory was.

As stated , I don't  have enough knowledge of the "pimple" to ascertain it's need or relevance, but am interested in pro and con arguments. Thanks for the discussion all.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Archie,

The angle of the new back tee allows a golfer to hit into the cant of the fairway, so perhaps, other than distance, it's an easier drive for the golfer as they're almost hitting into a backstop.

Play at PV can be very dependent upon conditions.  A wet/damp 18th fairway presents different challenges from a dry/firm 18th fairway that can dramatically alter your play.

You're right about trajectory, it's a critical element in playing that hole.
But,  how many golfers, members and regular guests, play from the back tees ?
Very, very few I suspect.

I find it very interesting atl clubs today.

They'll alter their greens to accomodate speed but not to enhance the architecture and the challenge.

We're going in the wrong direction.

[JESII]

Jim, If we are to take Carr's recollection as fact, it seems that at the very least Crump wanted a "heavy roll," did he not?

Yes, and Smith confirms the idea of a roll of some sort so let's move beyond the ridiculous notion that Crump intended the mound to be permanent.

[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.

I was incorrect on one of my dimensions from an article I unearthed a month or so ago.  Yes, the pimple was 3 1/2 feet high, but 3 1/2 feet in circumference at the base (not the diameter).

This article indicates you really could not go over it.

[JESII]

Joe,

Regardless of what the article says, there is no chance that mound is 3.5 feet high and 3.5 feet around. A 3.5 foot circumference implies slightly more than 1 foot in diamater which it was not...

[JESII]

It seems to me, that subsequent to Crump's death, that the course, as he had completed it, was almost sacrosanct.

Hence, if you wanted to remove a feature that Crump conceptualized, designed, built and retained until his death, how would you go about it in terms of popularizing the alteration ?

Simple, you'd have some declare that Crump always intended to remove it.
And that would give you the "anointing/blessing" necessary to remove it.

Crump knew the dire need for an internal feature on that green.
He understood that internal feature's function, which apparently some on this site don't understand.
It was a differentiator.
Remember, Pine Valley wasn't designed for the average golfer, it was specifically designed for the championship golfer.
Crump understood that and that's why he conceptualized, designed and built that mound, to challenge the championship golfer on the course's final hole.

This post must be preserved...absolutely unbelievable...now Smith and Carr are liars. You're a peach.

Combined with your insistance that February 1912 to January 1918 is six years I'm not quite sure what to think...

[DMoriarty]

Yes, and Smith confirms the idea of a roll of some sort so let's move beyond the ridiculous notion that Crump intended the mound to be permanent.

Just to be clear, what do you think Crump intended when he first built it?  Do you suppose he built it knowing he would want to remove it eventually?   Or did he build it thinking it would be permanent, and then maybe change his mind about the feature later?   

Regardless of what the article says, there is no chance that mound is 3.5 feet high and 3.5 feet around. A 3.5 foot circumference implies slightly more than 1 foot in diamater which it was not...

I agree but would go further.  If the mound in that photo was indeed 3.5 ft high, then then its diameter was much larger than 3.5 feet.   If the mound was half of a perfect circle (in this case a perfect sphere) the diameter would be twice the height (7 feet) but it would look like an igloo. Tough to tell exactly in the photo, but the mound looks to be six to eight times wider than it is tall.

[Terry Lavin]

I'd let out-of-state appellate court judges become VIP members.

[archie_struthers]

 

The mound. (pimple) appears quite  large  , perhaps 8-10 feet  wide at the base.  

When was the picture of the pimple taken.? It might answer some questions .  Certainly I know those greens as well as almost anyone, and it is an anomaly as shown . Why he would do it here alone may be telling.  A time frame ,as stated , may reveal intent or the hand of others.

The beauty and difficulty of  the Pine Valley greens is unquestioned. That  you can find a way , with great skill to leave a tap in from almost anywhere by  using the slope to advantage is Crump genius. You can hit it behind a front middle pin and the putt can be played 5 feet right to left or 20 feet left to right.......the speed of the day dictates the correct play.   This feature would negate that , so it seems incongruous . I really haven't fashioned an opinion  yet, need more info and analysis.

[JESII]

David,

I agree with your geometry and would only add that I doubt the mound was 3.5 feet tall to begin with...but who knows.

Regarding Crump's intention...I think he was reacting to a perceived advantage gained, or rather penalty not imparted on players who hit a less than perfect approach..."to give the player who sliced onto the green a more difficult putt than the player who plays straight to the center"...but didn't complete his plan before dying.

Do we know when the mound was built? It doesn't sound original..."He put it in to test if anything could be designed to penalize a sliced shot"

[DMoriarty]

The advertisement above ran in the spring of 1917, so the mound existed by then.  Here is an earlier photo from a different ad.  The earliest I've seen this one is from about May of 1915.  

[JESII]

Can you make out a pimple in that second photo?

[DMoriarty]

Can you make out a pimple in that second photo?

No. I don't see anything like the pimple shown in the other photo. 
That said, I guess it is possible that there is something in the right portion of the photo, but I can't really tell.  The photo is just not high enough quality to say, plus I am not sure the angle is or whether the pimple would definitely be in the photo.  I was hoping someone familiar with the course might be able to shed some light.  When I get a chance I will try to look in the actual magazine and see if the photo is better. 

[JESII]

I can't really see it either but couldn't rule it out considering the quality of the image.

In any event, I think some sort of roll would add interest and challenge to this green...as I think a roll would add interest and challenge to any green in golf. My disagreement with Pat is his opinion that the green demands it's restoration.

If, as you suggested earlier, we take Carr (or Smith in this instance) at his word that Crump thought the green needed a feature to create character due to its size I wouldn't argue but there's a huge difference in how this green plays today versus then simply from green speeds. It's not a punchbowl as Pat obsessively claims.

[Bryan Izatt]

Here is another picture of the pimple from August 1915.  Presumably it was built before then.  Interesting that Carter Seed is taking credit.  The other picture is from Michell Seed.  That picture appears in Michell ads later in the teens.  Could they have reseeded the green in the interim?

Using the flag stick (6 to 7 foot?) as a measure, the mound might be 15 to 20 feet wide.  It certainly doesn't look circular.  Maybe oval.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

If Crump wanted to remove the mound he would have done so.

There was NO ONE who would oppose him on any alterations at Pine Valley.

Yet, the mound remained for Crump's entire lifetime and then some.

Is it you contention that Smith and/or Carr NEVER made any misrepresentations during their entire lives ?

Bryan,

I wonder if the companies merged.

[archie_struthers]

 

It would be great to find some commentary by Crump on the "pimple" if it exists.  Alternatively who authorized it's removal. Have we clearly identified its existence prior to his death?  

As to the need to reintroduce it, I would much rather see the bunkers removed from the top of the hill on #4. The green on # 18 is excellent as it stands , and this addition  would only serve to reduce usable pin locations on the green. Given the severe cant in the left front, this might lead to wear problems going forward.

[JESII]

Pat,

The weakness of your position is evident by your need to splice Carr and Smith's "Remembrances" into half lie and half gospel. You're a waste to have these conversations with because you refuse to do so reasonably.

Your only evidence of Crump's desire to have a heavy roll of some sort (this is what you'd restore, isn't it?) is these same comments by Carr and Smith which you're disparaging as fabrications:

"Hence, if you wanted to remove a feature that Crump conceptualized, designed, built and retained until his death, how would you go about it in terms of popularizing the alteration ?

Simple, you'd have some declare that Crump always intended to remove it.
And that would give you the "anointing/blessing" necessary to remove it.

Get a grip.


A discussion of the heavy roll feature has merit, leave the mound out of it...

[Joe Bausch]

It would be great to find some commentary by Crump on the "pimple" if it exists.  Alternatively who authorized it's removal. Have we clearly identified its existence prior to his death?   

As to the need to reintroduce it, I would much rather see the bunkers removed from the top of the hill on #4. The green on # 18 is excellent as it stands , and this addition of would only serve to reduce pinnacle locations on the green. Given the severe cant in the left front, this might lead to wear problems going forward.

All:  see my updated 'pimple thread':

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42638.0.html