[archie_struthers]

 

Joe Bausch great work , now that I've read the article on the "pimple" I might like it more. Seems like "Bill" Flynn did the renovation work on and around the green

Lots of good stuff in the article , thanks Joe !

[Joe Bausch]

Joe Bausch great work , now that I've read the article on the "pimple" I might like it more. Seems like "Bill" Flynn did the renovation work on and around the green

Lots of good stuff in the article , thanks Joe !

You are welcome Archie.  Please also check your PM for a message from me.

[DMoriarty]

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.

Jim,

I couldn't say one way or another with regard to this particular hole, except that in principle I don't like anyone messing with old great courses, and am dubious of any attempts to guess at what those who were there might have wanted or would have wanted under modern conditions.  With regard to a roll, it seems to be opening the door to all sorts of possibilities and interpretations of what Crump might have wanted or would want, and history has shown that such pursuits often result in our courses being screwed up royally. This pimple presents an interesting dilemma because, like it or not, there was once a pimple on that green, so those who favor spicing up the green can at least stay within the bounds of "restoration."  For those who favor change, it is somewhere to hang their hat.  

As an aside, I am left wondering whether or not the pimple was as universally reviled as some think. It did last for at least a dozen years.  And around the same time Pine Valley was doing away with their pimple, George Thomas may have been building a similar feature on the short par three 15th at Los Angeles Country Club North.  Given that Thomas was one of the founding members at Pine Valley, it is perhaps not too much of a stretch to think he may have had Pine Valley's pimple in mind when he built the feature  (One early sketch of the hole has the bump at LACC as a bunker in the green, but I don't know if it ever was a bunker.  Hanse et. al restored some semblance of the pimple in their recent changes.)

[JESII]

Interesting post David and I can't disagree with any of it.

The restoration/architects intent conversation with regards to Pine Valley is a bit different than any other course I know of simply because the course was not finished yet when Crump died.

[ChipOat]

Pat,

To answer your original question on this thread, I guess I might do something with the 14th green.  It's quite flat, and compared to the other 17 greens, not so interesting.

In fact, #14 is the only hole on the course where, once you've reached the putting surface, you can relax just a little bit.  On the other 17 holes, once on the putting surface, your work has only just begun!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chip,

You don't think that #'s 1, 7 and 18 are rather benign ?

As to making the putting surface on # 14 more difficult, the shot to the green is so daunting that any added difficulty at the green end would've excessive

[archie_struthers]

 

Pat, #1 green is anything but benign. It's so important to hit the right club and get in the correct quadrant of the green. In the qualifiers, it's probably one of the three hardest holes relative to par all the time. As green speeds increase the ability to judge the weight of a lag is really tough over the little swales that run front to back.  Also , it's unusual for an opening hole to test you so severely right away with regards to iron play, so players are conservative as they fear 6 or 7 right out of the box.

You are right on  #14, the shot is plenty tough , as the wind always swirls. The new tee might be too far , as some have postulated here.

18 isn't too bad , unless they want it to be. Lol.  There are about six spots on that green that will really twist you without tons of local knowledge.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Moriarty,

Your point reflects what I've always maintained, namely that Crump conceptualized, designed and built the pimple in the 18th green and that he kept that pimple as an integral internal feature in that green for the rest of his lifetime.

THAT'S AN IRREFUTABLE FACT.

Anything other than a faithful restoration would be interpretive "speculation" on the part of any and all parties responsible for any alteration.

For that reason alone, ONLY a faithful restoration should be considered.

Crump's actions speak volumes louder than the speculation of others.

[Mark Chaplin]

I'd suggest the pimple didn't work and was removed once Mr Crump had passed away. From the picture it looks like you couldn't have putted over it and get anywhere near the hole so it may as well have been a bunker. The green may benefit from some gentle contouring but any more is IMO unnecessary.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'd suggest the pimple didn't work and was removed once Mr Crump had passed away.

Your suggestion is in error.
The pimple did work, Crump kept it as an integral feature in the 18th green the entire time he was alive.

It wasn't removed once Crump passed away, it continued to exist for another decade after his death before it was removed.

From the picture it looks like you couldn't have putted over it and get anywhere near the hole so it may as well have been a bunker.
Crump intended it to be difficult to navigate, that was it's purpose, to differentiate a good shot from a marginal shot and penalize the marginal shot accordingly.

The green may benefit from some gentle contouring but any more is IMO unnecessary.

That's an opinion NOT shared by Crump

[ChipOat]

Pat,

Archie beat me to the punch on #1; it's benign in the very front but, IMO, nowhere else.

#7 not so bad putting from the front but, to me, quite "interesting" everywhere else.

#18 can feed the ball toward the hole depending on where YOU are and where IT is.  Maybe one of the easier "rainbow" breaks to read but, for me, it's a challenge.

I'll accept your judgement on #14 from the new back tee but the green is still big enough to be made more "interesting" without making the hole too difficult, IMO.

#5 is no bargain to reach, either, and that green is truly ridiculous in today's world of stimps, mowers, grass and fertilizers.  If you're not putting/chipping from the right front..........................

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Archie beat me to the punch on #1; it's benign in the very front but, IMO, nowhere else.

Chip, the entire "putting surface" on # 1 is benign.
The approach, especially to a back hole location is very dicey, but once on the putting surface, there's little in the way of pronounced slope and/or contour to challenge the golfer

#7 not so bad putting from the front but, to me, quite "interesting" everywhere else.

There is some slope/contour in the putting surface, but in general it's fairly benign

#18 can feed the ball toward the hole depending on where YOU are and where IT is.  Maybe one of the easier "rainbow" breaks to read but, for me, it's a challenge.

With my putting these days, every green is a challenge, but relatively speaking, this green is benign.

#'s 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, (both) 9, (both) 11, 12 and 15 seem to present more of a challenge on the putting surface, once you've arrived.

I'll accept your judgement on #14 from the new back tee but the green is still big enough to be made more "interesting" without making the hole too difficult, IMO.

You must be hitting the ball very well.
On my last few rounds there we were hitting 5 and 6 irons to that green and many didn't find the putting surface.
You KNOW what happens when you miss that green, and none of it is good.
Introducing pronounced contour and/or slope would be excessively penal.
Shouldn't an approach that hits that green be rewarded rather than penalized by being confronted with a difficult putt ?

#5 is no bargain to reach, either, and that green is truly ridiculous in today's world of stimps, mowers, grass and fertilizers.  If you're not putting/chipping from the right front..........................

I agree.  I think increased speeds have converted a great hole to a great hole that can be goofy golf.

I like TEPaul's suggestion that you prepare your most severe green to accommodate reasonable golf and then mow/prepare all of your other greens to that standard.

Routinely three putting from 15 feet is the mark of excessive preparation

[JSlonis]

I wouldn't say the 1st green is benign at all.  Maybe the back 1/3 of it.  The different rolls in that green from the front to about 2/3 back are brilliant and difficult.  That is the genius of the design on number one.  Very few players have the game or the stones to attack a back hole location and playing conservative to the front or even the middle leaves you with a very tough two putt to start your day.

As for those who have mentioned #5 and might have an opportunity to play PV this year, you will notice that #5 green got a similar renovation to #2 this off season.  It appears that the overall slope from back to front has been softened, as well as the very back portion of the green. The front part was changed slightly as well but the false front that was there is still part of the design. Prior to this change, there was only about a 5 foot area in the back right for a rear hole location.  Now it looks like there is cuppable area from the middle back over to the right.  Also, a golfer who hits a tee shot on the green but in the back part of the green will at least be able to keep a putt to a front pin on the green.  With speeds of 10.5-11+, it was nearly impossible to keep a putt on the green before.  It takes a damn good shot to hit that green anyway, I've always thought there was too severe a penalty if you happened to have your ball stay on the green in the back when the hole location was front. Even with Crump's desire to create a stern championship test, I doubt he would have ever envisioned or wanted his greens to be unputtable in certain spots.

I was thinking about the renovation of some of these classic greens and I think the discussion deserves it's own topic.(I'll post this last paragraph into a new topic) Obviously we all love many of the green designs at courses like Pine Valley, Merion, etc but when really analyzing these greens, we have to understand the green speeds at the time they were built and what the designers might have thought green speeds would become.  I would say for almost certain that the architects at the time could never have envisioned greens running at 11-12+ on a Stimp.  In that era, greens were near 4-6, with 6 being what they thought very fast.  We now have fairways that are quicker than that.  I just think it's important to think about that when people are quick to criticize clubs for softening current greens a bit.  I'm certainly not advocating flat greens, but I don't think the challenge is diminished much when you combine today's green speeds with some softening in certain areas.  If you take all the greens at PV for example and compared the challenge in putting at current speeds to that of 30 years ago, it's not even close. The greens would be incredibly easier with a stimp of 7-9 feet.  I don't see technology going backward in regard to agronomy or equipment, it never has.  So clubs have to deal with the present situation and determine what they feel is the correct way to present their course as a relevant challenge.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

I wouldn't say the 1st green is benign at all.  Maybe the back 1/3 of it.  The different rolls in that green from the front to about 2/3 back are brilliant and difficult.  That is the genius of the design on number one.  Very few players have the game or the stones to attack a back hole location and playing conservative to the front or even the middle leaves you with a very tough two putt to start your day.

Jamie, the difficulty in the putt is primarily distance/length, not contours and/or slope.

As for those who have mentioned #5 and might have an opportunity to play PV this year, you will notice that #5 green got a similar renovation to #2 this off season.  It appears that the overall slope from back to front has been softened, as well as the very back portion of the green. The front part was changed slightly as well but the false front that was there is still part of the design. Prior to this change, there was only about a 5 foot area in the back right for a rear hole location.  Now it looks like there is cuppable area from the middle back over to the right.  Also, a golfer who hits a tee shot on the green but in the back part of the green will at least be able to keep a putt to a front pin on the green.  With speeds of 10.5-11+, it was nearly impossible to keep a putt on the green before.  It takes a damn good shot to hit that green anyway, I've always thought there was too severe a penalty if you happened to have your ball stay on the green in the back when the hole location was front. Even with Crump's desire to create a stern championship test, I doubt he would have ever envisioned or wanted his greens to be unputtable in certain spots.

The problem with that reasoning, on greens like # 2, # 5 and others, is that it focuses on the putting surface solely in terms of putting, to the exclusion of the approach and recovery.

One cannot isolate a function. They're all connected.  There's a reason that contours and slopes were introduced into putting surfaces.
To move away from PV for a second, examine if you will the 1st, 3rd and 6th greens at NGLA in terms of their contour/slope and how those features influence play for the approach, recovery and putts.  Once you understand the tactical purpose of contour/slope, that it extends far beyond the putting surface, back to the approach, and further back to the drive, you begin to understand the architect's purpose.

I had a prominent architect tell me that he designed holes in reverse, from the green back to the tee.
I understood his methodology.
When others talked about # 8 at PB, they only spoke of the approach, ignoring the significance of a properly placed drive and how it influences the approach, and the recovery as well, and.... ultimately, the putts.

Hence, flattening greens, and there's no other way to describe it, will not only diminish the challenge ON the putting surface, but the challenge leading to the putting surface, and that's the problem I have with flattening greens to accomodate higher stimp speeds.

Ask yourself, as new grasses are introduced, that allow for lower heights, and higher speeds, where does the quest for speed end ?
When greens are perfectly flat and putting at 16 ?

Contour/slope and configuration create character, unique character, but, they also create challenge, on the drive, approach, recovery and putts.
Given the choice of placing a governor on speed or flattening greens, I have to opt for a governor, which will preserve wonderful greens, not disfigure them in the name of speed.

Granted that # 5 at PV is exceptionally unique and that the number of golfers reaching that green in regulation is minimal, pivoting the slope seems benign, but, it's a domino none the less.  At some point in time, flattening greens to accomodate higher speeds has to stop or the distinctive life will be squeezed out of golf's most important architectural feature.

I was thinking about the renovation of some of these classic greens and I think the discussion deserves it's own topic.(I'll post this last paragraph into a new topic) Obviously we all love many of the green designs at courses like Pine Valley, Merion, etc but when really analyzing these greens, we have to understand the green speeds at the time they were built and what the designers might have thought green speeds would become.  I would say for almost certain that the architects at the time could never have envisioned greens running at 11-12+ on a Stimp.  In that era, greens were near 4-6, with 6 being what they thought very fast.  We now have fairways that are quicker than that.  I just think it's important to think about that when people are quick to criticize clubs for softening current greens a bit.  I'm certainly not advocating flat greens, but I don't think the challenge is diminished much when you combine today's green speeds with some softening in certain areas.  If you take all the greens at PV for example and compared the challenge in putting at current speeds to that of 30 years ago, it's not even close. The greens would be incredibly easier with a stimp of 7-9 feet.  I don't see technology going backward in regard to agronomy or equipment, it never has.  So clubs have to deal with the present situation and determine what they feel is the correct way to present their course as a relevant challenge.  

Jamie, just tell me this:  Where does the natural progression of increased green speeds lead to in terms of the architectural character of greens ?

[Mark Chaplin]

Exceptionally unique interesting concept.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()