News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
More Pine Valley architecture
« on: January 02, 2013, 07:39:26 PM »
 8)



I got a few calls regarding my response. on "hell's half acre " which bisects the seventh hole at  Pine Valley GC, which I won't discuss at this point in time but were quite educational. It's also true we talk about the golf course there a lot , but it is so intriguing , even to a guy who has been there as much as I .  Every day you spent there it might reveal some new wrinkle or subtlety , so much so that I marvel at its very existence to this day.

George Crump's work is genius, and so novel with the philosophy of separation of holes and target golf. That it even got built is amazing, and a testament to the love of one man for golf. It was obviously so intriguing and good that he was able to assemble a who's who of golf architecture to aid him in his quest for the holy grail. I  challenge the tree house to explain how this singular man managed to get it so right on his first effort , and why his education in golf prepared him to do so?
« Last Edit: January 02, 2013, 07:44:07 PM by archie_struthers »

Jeb Bearer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #1 on: January 02, 2013, 07:49:37 PM »
Archie,

Unfortunately I don't know a lot about Crump. Hardly anything at all actually. I would love to learn much more about him, a fascinating and hugely influential figure. What is his "education in golf" that you refer to?

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #2 on: January 02, 2013, 07:55:59 PM »
 ;D :D  8)

Jeb, my question is yours. Although I know the details of the course and how it plays for  many levels of golfer, I wonder how Crump could have conceived it . He was a Philadelphia guy, spent time at the Jersey Shore, and from all accounts, a solid if not sensational player. How did this fellow imagine such a place , which to this day is regarded as one of the best courses ever built by anyone.

Stephen Davis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #3 on: January 02, 2013, 07:59:43 PM »
It was either Brad Klein or Tom Doak who discussed in their book (either Rough Meditations or Anatomy of a Golf Course, I am sorry that I can't quite remember who it was) that many of the great courses were first attempts for the architects. I am interested in reading what others have to say on the topic. I can't help but to think that with the first attempt, the architects had a desire to put their best into it and to use their best ideas. Who knew if they were going to get another shot. Conversely, maybe they didn't want another try and wanted to get it right the first time. Whatever the reason, it is truly remarkable what Crump was able to create.

Joe Bausch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #4 on: January 02, 2013, 08:00:39 PM »
There is much about Crump in this 2005 piece by the late Tom Macwood:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/thomas-macwood-george-arthur-crump-portrait-of-a-legend/
@jwbausch (for new photo albums)
The site for the Cobb's Creek project:  https://cobbscreek.org/
Nearly all Delaware Valley golf courses in photo albums: Bausch Collection

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #5 on: January 02, 2013, 08:17:11 PM »
explain how this singular man managed to get it so right on his first effort , and why his education in golf prepared him to do so?

This could be the greatest question in the history of GCA.com.

I've yet to play Pine Valley, but I'd like to offer some thoughts from reading and re-reading "Pine Valley Golf Club, A Unique Haven to the Game."

1) Perhaps it starts with Crump's specific goal.  No wishy-washiness.  According to AW Tillinghast, "the course will be constructed to furnish an exacting test of expert golf.  It will be no place for the duffer or timid player."

2) Furthermore, to accompany this specific agenda, he had great land.  Again, according to Tillinghast, "I have gone over the ground and I have never seen a more interesting stretch of golf country ... The conditions for hazard-making are ideal and bunker-placement will be easy work..."

3) Mr. Crump starting with this specific vision then dedicated himself to the project whole-heartedly.  In fact, living on the grounds/course during construction.  

4) He started it with the idea of it being a "golf course for golf's sake."  No country club appealing to a wide-variety of interest, golf for golfers.  Period.  Therefore, no compromises.  The best land and features went towards bettering the playing of golf.

5)  It was not a money making schemed disguised as a golf course.  Profits and proceeds from membership and any housing sales/land sales were rolled into the course.

I'll stop now, but it was pure dedication to building a pure golf course.

I believe it starts there.


EDIT...I can't stop.  A key phrase here when raising money from members.  "It is not an investment.  If you buy a share of stock, you very probably will never get your money back..."

Members went in eyes wide open and were in it for the golf.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2013, 08:20:11 PM by Mac Plumart »
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #6 on: January 02, 2013, 08:49:28 PM »
 :D :o 8)

Mac,  how about we zero in on Crump's desire to accomplish your point number one ....it was meant to test the mettle of the very best.

Could it be that Crump's design was built to combat the technology , proficiency of the experts of his era, hence an aerial masterpiece was built.  In contrast to todays tour pros who hit it  so high and far, contemporaries of Crump hit low running shots. In fact the best players hit it hard and low and judged the roll better than anyone else.  

How to defend against them,. .  How about trajectory , make them hit high soft shots. Just a hypothesis, but could it be that simple?  Could this be the reason Crump designed a course quite foreign to his day.  Was he responding to the technology advances of his era, to whippy shafts and slinging shots?  Perhaps we are on to something here.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2013, 08:00:02 AM by archie_struthers »

Jeb Bearer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #7 on: January 02, 2013, 09:40:31 PM »
Sounds at least very plausible. Could the fact that he was not a professional architect, and thus had no preconceived ideas, have enabled him to step outside the bounds of what was then conventional in pursuit of this goal?

Another question, how did he handle the technical aspects of the design? Could such a masterpiece be built by an amateur today, with modern irrigation and shaping standards?

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #8 on: January 02, 2013, 09:45:59 PM »
Crump was a man who had known the joy and tragedy of life. He had lost his wife, for whom he was building a dream home. This may sound callous, but in literary terms he was the perfect character. He poured his grief into golf. He had pride (and frustration) in his Philly/PA side in the cup matches with New York.

Here is a great quote from the amazing aforementioned piece by Macwood:

‘It looks to have been some upheaval of the bed of the sea in bygone ages. There are ridges and rolls in every direction; big ones and little ones; long ones and short ones; hills and knolls, with every variety of shape and size. You could not fancy any contour of ground more admirably suited for golf purposes.’

Crump was an outdoorsman, no? He had an innate sense of what the land offered. Crump must have been a humble man, to assemble the pandilla of experts (Tillinghast, Colt, Travis) and just as Mike Keiser had his Howard (McKee) at Bandon, so too do Crump have Perrin, a right-hand man who seemed to move fluidly in service.

And how can you ever discount the importance of a man from the auld sod in a critical role?

In a December article in American Cricketer the new irrigation system is discussed for the first time-its prime function is to irrigate the greens. Jim Govan the pro/superintendent at St. David’s is hired. Govan, a Scotsman from St. Andrews, moves his family into a home on the property in early January. He would become Crump’s construction foreman.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2013, 09:48:17 PM by Ronald Montesano »
Coming in 2024
~Elmira Country Club
~Soaring Eagles
~Bonavista
~Indian Hills
~Maybe some more!!

Stephen Davis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #9 on: January 02, 2013, 10:52:14 PM »
Sounds at least very plausible. Could the fact that he was not a professional architect, and thus had no preconceived ideas, have enabled him to step outside the bounds of what was then conventional in pursuit of this goal?

Another question, how did he handle the technical aspects of the design? Could such a masterpiece be built by an amateur today, with modern irrigation and shaping standards?

Jeb,

I think it is fairly safe to say that something of this magnitude and quality could not be built by an amateur today. It is a sad but true statement. There is just far too much that has to go into a course now days to ever expect something like this to be repeated in this day and age.

Greg Holland

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #10 on: January 03, 2013, 12:11:53 AM »
Quote
Jeb,

I think it is fairly safe to say that something of this magnitude and quality could not be built by an amateur today. It is a sad but true statement. There is just far too much that has to go into a course now days to ever expect something like this to be repeated in this day and age.

"John Raese, one of the designers of Pikewood National is more known for running for the U. S. Senate from West Virginia than as a golf course designer.  Dow Finsterwald and I think Johnny Pott were involved in the design.  They were looking at trying to emulate some of the features they enjoy the most of their favorite courses.  

The course at Pikewood National is simply outstanding.  It is a very thorough test of the game, long and quite difficult but I thought there were some really cool holes."  

I lifted the above quote from the new rankings thread.  As noted, many "first time" architects did  their best work on their maiden voyage.  I have not seen Pikewood, but seems like a fairly similar situation.  Man with means and interest designs course, but enlists others -- including architects and tour pros to help . . . .  

There is another course near Richmond that I think was a first design that is ranked highly I believe - built in the last 10 or so years.  Was Kingsley Club Mike DeVries first design?  

Greg Holland

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #11 on: January 03, 2013, 12:16:56 AM »
P.S.  While not an amateur, I also believe Bandon Dunes was a first course desing as well for DMK design.

Kyle Henderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #12 on: January 03, 2013, 03:00:23 AM »
I think patience in waiting for the right piece of land was probably the most critical step, but even that is tough to get right on one's first attempt. Crump benefitted greatly from the advice of several of the greatest GCA's of his day (Tillie, Thomas, etc), but it is miraculous that he was apparently able to sift through their suggestions and piece everything together -- too many cooks in the kitchen is often a bad thing in golf design. His clear intent for the course's design allowed him to produce a cohesive 18-hole experience, while incorporating just the right amount of input from more experienced hands to complete the course with seemingly no creative stone unturned.

Many of the best designs of the golden era were not only the first from their leading architect, they were often cultivated over several years of conception. Obviously, Crump wasn't around long enough to tweak Pine Valley in a manner entirely similar to Donald Ross' continuous improvement efforts with Pinehurst #2, but he spent a relatively long time planning nearly every stage of PV's development.

At least, that's my understanding based on the writings and playing experiences of others. I have yet to hear anything negative about PV aside from a few gripes regarding Fazio-directed bunker "formalization." Is any course so universally praised as PV?
"I always knew terrorists hated us for our freedom. Now they love us for our bondage." -- Stephen T. Colbert discusses the popularity of '50 Shades of Grey' at Gitmo

David_Elvins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #13 on: January 03, 2013, 03:07:16 AM »

Archie,

I could be wrong here, but you have designed the same number of courses as George Crump, right? 

Do you think your experience gives you any insight into what Crump did? 
Ask not what GolfClubAtlas can do for you; ask what you can do for GolfClubAtlas.

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #14 on: January 03, 2013, 05:35:28 AM »
Archie,

I re-read your elaboration and inquiry of Mac's first point. I'm nut sure if you were hoping someone would raise that point so that you could fulfill your own prophecy, or if Mac's maiden point awakened a long-dormant notion for you. In either case, it's a very interesting point.

Must the hard and low shot be completely abandoned at Pine Valley? Are there so many daunting carries that a hooking runner is such a low-percentage play? I suspect that the answer is, while one can play the runner in a number of instances, fronting hazards (bunkers, vertical slopes) to fairways and putting surfaces force a combination of ground and aerial games. While (from the google earth overhead) views from above suggest that a number of holes might be receptive to the runner into the green, it's probably not the optimal play.

The length of time needed to bring the design to fruitiion reminds me a bit of the Pete Dye GC in West Virginia, which I recall took over 15 years from start to finish. In the end, after the death of Crump, it was left to his syndicate to complete the task.

When the course is open for spectators on Crump Cup day, is viewing of the short course allowed or are guests restricted to the competition on the main course?
Coming in 2024
~Elmira Country Club
~Soaring Eagles
~Bonavista
~Indian Hills
~Maybe some more!!

Brett_Morrissy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #15 on: January 03, 2013, 06:10:38 AM »
Passion. Time. Commitment. Love. Golf. Money. Time. Desire. Ambition. Time. Driven. Advice.

...and formulating 18 original riddles.

Did I mention Time? Time to contemplate the puzzle, the questions and the answers.
@theflatsticker

Kris Shreiner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #16 on: January 03, 2013, 06:53:41 AM »


A GREAT PIECE OF GROUND! Above all else,especially in that era, the land offered that potential. His single-minded approach and relentless spirit to tease the finest test out of that ground saw it to where it was at his death. Fortunately for those lucky enough to play it, others in his circle that were involved appreciated what was there and completed the course. The story of PV is a remarkable one; it is a testament to greatness sustained in spite of long odds. Mr. Crump gave up a significant part of his life to see it thru...to his last breath. Few exhibit that dedication.

Pikewood is an interesting comparison. While I've yet to walk or play the new nine...All I've heard, from some pretty tough, astute critics that have played it, is that it is off the charts. Does it need refinement? Yes it will. Is it mainly an aerial test? Based on the nine I know well, yes. So is PV. That said, it is a very special place that brings the juice. That elusive "rightness" simply oozes out. While I can't quite put it in the clutch of PV"s level...it's close...and still in its embryonic stages of evolution.



Cheers,
Kris 8)
"I said in a talk at the Dunhill Tournament in St. Andrews a few years back that I thought any of the caddies I'd had that week would probably make a good golf course architect. We all want to ask golfers of all abilities to get more out of their games -caddies do that for a living." T.Doak

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #17 on: January 03, 2013, 07:58:12 AM »
 ??? ??? ???

Ron,  in answer to your question on the low running hook, no shot is punished more at Pine Valley. It is anathema to posting a good score.


I chatted with Tom Paul yesterday about hole number seven and Hells Half Acre. . Tom mentioned writings reflect that Crump talked of a double dogleg on #7, which would have moved the second half of the fairway over by what is now the practice field. It struck me that this would have made the third shot easier. We talked some more and this prompted me to post the topic here.


Caddying for so many great players there I was blessed to see how they thought . listening and watching their reactions to the shots required to score.  Getting to play there every night for a couple years helped me understand it a little better. I was lucky that my natural miss was a push block, which is the right miss at PVGC. More to that later.
 
On another level , I  remember quite clearly Pete Dye jumping in a pot bunker way left off the sixth fairway, shaking his head and no doubt thinking , why here?  Only a low running snipe could find its way here. Ah ha Ron! 'm quite confident that I understand the defenses PVGC has to scoring today,  but perhaps you have to go back in time to understand the genesis for the design .  When I thought of Crump last night before posting my query, I wasn't begging Mac's question, but his response illuminated it  it for me!

If you built a fortress of golf today, you would use rough, water and firm and fast conditions. In Crump's experiences, both playing and studying , he saw just those conditions . The great players of his day found a way to overcome these. But, given the technology available to them, could  they carry the hazards and "gronkel" that  defined Pine Valley at its inception. Probably not.

Bobby Jones statement that Nicklaus "played a game with which I am not familiar" is really telling. In watching Jones on his fantastic educational tapes Its striking how much lag he had in his swing, which resulted in the fantastic , slinging shots that he hit. Wouldn't Jones be the  epitome of an "expert" Crump was defending against. My good friend Billy Care, a reclusive golf legend in our area, told me he was struck by the height Nicklaus hit the ball. Nicklaus changed the game , today the trend continues, everything is straight up . In Crump's time, no one hit shots like this.



Crump and his fellow Philadelphians played at course that were likely hard , fast and windy. They played at the shore all winter and I just have to walk outside to see a low runner is the shot of the day . The best players of Crump's day hit low hard running draws, which would allow you to score. No doubt his experiences overseas mirrored this, as anyone who has played there knows. Pine Valley is the antithesis , in fact it does not reward the low running shot with the exception of holes four and twelve. It is built for someone who hit it like young Jack Nicklaus, not Johnny McDermott. Soft , high carrying shots work best, low running hooks often end up in spots that you can't describe without expletives.

Thanks gentleman, enjoying the discourse on George Crump's masterpiece.




« Last Edit: January 03, 2013, 01:40:05 PM by archie_struthers »

Mark McKeever

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #18 on: January 03, 2013, 09:56:28 AM »
Archie,

That's an interesting note on 7.  Even today, its a much easier shot if you go down the right side of the lay up zone after hitting over HHA.   As long as you can avoid the trees blocking your third shot, the right side is much easier.


Mark
Best MGA showers - Bayonne

"Dude, he's a total d***"

JSlonis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #19 on: January 03, 2013, 10:17:57 AM »
Mark,

I'd disagree a bit regarding the placement of the 2nd shot. At least for my game, I think the left side is more favorable. It offers a much easier shot to any right hole location and most of the green's contours set up better a better angle to use from the left side.

Just a thought...

Mark McKeever

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #20 on: January 03, 2013, 10:41:35 AM »
Good point regarding the right side Jamie.  I guess I feel more comfortable over the shot (despite a short iron/wedge in hand) seeing up the throat of the green especially to pins on the back and left sides.  As you are well aware, a comfortable looking shot is a welcomed relief after carrying HHA.   :)

Do you ever hit a lower flighted shot to the right pins on your third, or is it usually more of a high soft shot onto the green?

Mark
Best MGA showers - Bayonne

"Dude, he's a total d***"

JSlonis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #21 on: January 03, 2013, 01:01:47 PM »
Mark,

Thinking about it more...The preferred spot for the approach on 7 probably differs for each depending on if they usually draw or fade the ball.

As for approaches to the right pins, I'm usually hitting a short iron or wedge into that green so for me it's primarily a high soft shot.  The only time that might change is if the hole is located on the back right.  There is a great "tournament" location back there that you really have to be careful with and knowing that, i might try and chase a 3/4 type shot back into that spot.  A lot of it depends on the firmness of the greens.

I think the green firmness is the one big factor that really changes how you hit your approaches at PV. I'm lucky enough to have played there under the entire spectrum of firmness and the difference in shots that you try to play can be night and day depending on conditions.

I've played where you can try and throw darts right at the hole and I've played at times when I was trying to land the ball 40-50 ft away from the same hole location. Outside of perhaps Merion, I'm not sure if I've played a course that approach shots can change so dramatically based on green firmness. 
« Last Edit: January 03, 2013, 01:09:14 PM by JSlonis »

Mark McKeever

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #22 on: January 03, 2013, 01:06:59 PM »
Thanks for the insight Jamie.   I've never seen the flag in the back right section of the green though I can imagine its quite good considering the slopes toward the middle of the green.

Mark
Best MGA showers - Bayonne

"Dude, he's a total d***"

Michael Dugger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #23 on: January 03, 2013, 01:41:54 PM »
I always sensed Crump had a terrific sense of adventure and built that type of experience into Pine Valley.

Many of the terrific hazards have roots in the ancient links courses. 
What does it matter if the poor player can putt all the way from tee to green, provided that he has to zigzag so frequently that he takes six or seven putts to reach it?     --Alistair Mackenzie--

Tyler Kearns

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #24 on: January 03, 2013, 03:53:17 PM »
It was either Brad Klein or Tom Doak who discussed in their book (either Rough Meditations or Anatomy of a Golf Course, I am sorry that I can't quite remember who it was) that many of the great courses were first attempts for the architects. I am interested in reading what others have to say on the topic. I can't help but to think that with the first attempt, the architects had a desire to put their best into it and to use their best ideas. Who knew if they were going to get another shot. Conversely, maybe they didn't want another try and wanted to get it right the first time. Whatever the reason, it is truly remarkable what Crump was able to create.

Stephen,

I have no doubt that a golf architect's earliest works are often their most enduring and well received designs.  Think about it, most architects spend a good deal of time apprenticing, and in the worst case are simply implementing other people's ideas (in drawing form or in construction) and even if given greater freedom by their boss to tweak the original design, the routing and many other major features are not theirs.  No two golf architect's have the same design sensibilities, and would all create something different on the same piece of ground.  Therefore, I'm sure a lot of associate architects feel like much of the work produced under their watch as construction supervisor is not exactly as they would have designed it, if given free reign.

I would equate the early work of golf architects to that of musicians.  How many Rolling Stones fans are clambering to hear their most current album when the see them on tour? Not many.  Very often their best work is a product of their first 3 or so albums when they were full of new ideas and creativity and it was all about the music.  That is certainly not true of all golf architects, but some start repeating themselves by falling back on tried & true designs, styles and techniques, kind of how some band's music starts to sound the same over time.  Sometimes we forget that golf architects are running businesses, and the business aspect can take a lot of time, and get in the way of the work at times.

TK