More Pine Valley architecture

[Mac Plumart]

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.

Again, Archie, I have not played the course...but studied it a good bit.  

I think the concept behind the "test of golf" is the driving force behind the architecture of Pine Valley.  I remember talking offline with Tom Macwood about this era in golf history and I recall him saying that during this time frame the Brits were killing the Americans in all the golf competitions and the Americans were looking to improve their competitiveness by developing more difficult golf courses.  Furthermore, I've had recent discussions with Tom Paul about the fact that Philly golfers were also looking to improve their competitiveness versus their New York counterparts in the same way.  With these facts behind the scenes, I feel that there is no doubt the Pine Valley Golf Course was one of the "improvement centers" or "proving grounds" for elite level American/Philly golfers.  And the golf course was designed with this in mind, first and foremost.


Further to your points, "how could Crump do this on this first attempt?"

First off, his golfing ability allowed him to be able to envision what type of course needed to be built to serve as the "proving grounds" for elite golfers, as he is noted to have been an excellent golfer.  Funny story from "Pine Valley, a Unique Haven to the Game".  Crump was playing with a business man of the area who'd just plugged his ball into a massive bunker.  The businessman said, "why are theses bunkers so high, if I fall off here I'll break my neck?"  Crump said, "Now you've got it.  We build them so high that the dub golfers will all break their necks.  This course is for champions."

Secondly, he was a creatively intelligent problem solver.  As part of the upper crust of society, he had a well rounded education and this, no doubt, helped him combine his raw intelligence, creativity, golfing ability with American/Philly golfing needs to develop a truly great golf course for the elite golfer.

Thirdly, he was not egocentric and opted for a collaborative approach.  Being an excellent amateur golfer with an educated intelligence, but still a novice architect, he sought opinions of the best of the best while constructing the course; Tillinghast, Macdonald, Wilson, Fownes, Thomas, and Travis.

And I think one of the MOST important points regarding how he got it right in his first effort was TIME.  The construction process began in 1912-ish and wasn't done until 1919/1921 (?).  Of course, Crump never saw it in its completed form.  Nevertheless, from the beginning if mistakes were made, the time was taken to correct them.  Mud was taken from the bottom of swamps to make greens and the grass died.  No problem.  Re-do them.  This may take time, but with no contracts or business mandates/time tables to deal with Pine Valley could correct things and get them right before opening the club.  I believe this aspects of time, covered up a lot of trial and error and mistakes.


But, to your point about a "test" of golf.  I believe that was the reason for the course, at least one of them.  To improve the playing ability of the people using the course and train them for competitive golf formats.  Perhaps this is why you see so many cross hazards, difficult and well protected greens, and the like.

[Jeb Bearer]

In terms of a difficult test of golf, from reading Tom MacWood's essay (which was brilliant) it would seem that a prime motivating factor behind the idea of PV was that, ironically, there wasn't any testing golf in the Philly area. Therefore, they didn't produce enough great golfers to compete with NY and Boston, hence Pine Valley.

[Mac Plumart]

From what I know, that is exactly correct, Jeb.

From simply looking at pictures, I'd guess the cross bunkering punishes mishit tee shots and long irons.  People who've played it, is this correct?  Perhaps, like Oakmont, it embraces a shot misplayed is a shot irrevocably lost.  Penal, punishing, demanding architecture.  No?

[Chip Gaskins]

how about the fact that Crump had pretty much the best in the business (all time) consult, spend time, advise, recommend, etc on a spectacular piece of land with a crystal clear goal.  knowing what you want, and asking the best in the business for advice is a pretty sure way of ending up with something great.  plus the piece of land is as solid as they come (inland).  you can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Archie,

I'll try to address your question/s later this week, but, I think that PV's ability to remain highly relevant, almost a century after it's creation, might be partially due to the motive behind the original design.

I too marvel at what was created in 1918, it's quite extraordinary by any standard

[Brett_Morrissy]

Much is made of Crump soliciting advice from "the great architects of the day" - "the best of the best".

Is the reality that hindsight is the basis for these assumptions?

It is my understanding - and i am happy to be corrected - is that some/many of these architects of the day, were in fact only at the early stages of their respective architecture careers. I thought it was as if the likes of Tillinghast and Thomas were like the design associates of today, without perhaps being the big names of today. Does that make sense?

Mac, do you think it is possible that the bow you draw is a long one, to suggest the reason Crump decided he wanted to build a course that was the ultimate test of golf was due to the fact that the Brits were belting the Yanks in international events? Or that the folks of Philly were tired of getting beaten by those 'up starts' from New York and Long Island.
That he thought to appoint himself the official learning centre for American and specifically Philly based golfers and dedicate what was left of his life and relationships, of his fortunes to do it? 

Isn't it just possible that he had a love for the game like few others of his time or any other and wanted to build the best possible course, and that he had a philosophy of what this would "look/feel/play" like? And then found the land, but needed help on how to put that vision together, and again sort feedback from those in this fledgling business that were happy to help? They all seemed to mention/name drop about PVGC in articles they wrote in published papers and magazines?

Why did he need more reason than this?

[Mac Plumart]

Brett...

How much research have you done relative to the origins of Pine Valley?  As I stated, the points you seem to contest were delivered to me from Tom Macwood and Tom Paul.  If you have information to disputed it, please share. 

[Ronald Montesano]

Having no first-person proof, I'm going on hunch. Walter Travis (don't take this the wrong way) reminds me of Mac to a great degree (minus the international tournament record.) He was a guy who burst into golf with such fervor and passion and his learning curve was quite steep (in that he learned a lot in a brief period of time, through fervent dedication to all aspects of the game and its courses.) No matter what the record, Travis had to have been a great help to Crump.

The second critical point, also stated earlier/elsewhere, is the groundskeeper/course builder.

The third point is pedagogy. If, as Mac informs, the reason for being was a training ground to improve golfers, what higher purpose could exist? I'm not certain I understand the completeness of the reason, but I do like the enthusiasm. After all, it's not as if all other courses were going to change their playing characteristics to emulate those found at Pine Valley. Crump, it seems, was after a paradigm shift and his Pine Valley broke literal and figurative ground on the third plane of the game.

[archie_struthers]

 


Great stuff, made me go back and read lots of Crump personal history.

My mind keeps focusing on Crump's epiphany that trajectory would be the key to his masterpiece. It caused him to build a golf course unlike any other , that is still so relevant today because of the quality of each and every hole .  As I converse with people more connected to the history than I, it becomes clearer that he did indeed hate losing to the Brits and NY , and had a driver he took great pride in launching in the air.  It's quite unusual that it's talked about in great detail.

So, he built an aerial golf course , one that intrigued and confounded most of the architectural scholars of his day, so much so that they were drawn like moths to the flame.  Likewise the course befuddled the great players , because it disarmed their strengths, honed over hard running golf courses of the era.  Remember , irrigation wasn't quite what it is today .

All the stars were in alignment formCrump, what a shame he didn't see it to its conclusion. No doubt he would be proud!

[Brett_Morrissy]

Mac,
I have done a little research into PVGC, but am no historian. And I am not disputing the facts as you mentioned supplied by "Tom's"... Just the putting together of some of those facts to form the conclusion as to why and his motivation to build his golf course.

You mentioned he was intelligent and educated, and also a successful businessman and hotelier, maybe as Archie suggests, he had figured out the key to a strategy for a golf design that may befuddle the players of the day - aerial attack, and from this I assume that there were very few golfers who would be able to play this style with the equipment available then - must have been a tiny percentage of golfers that kind hit it high, and land without roll, on barely irrigated turf?

He may also have wanted to build himself a nice quiet country club for himself and some like minded friends, I imagine he had the service and hospitality side of things down pat?

Mac, I am sure you have spent many hours thinking about what a golf course would look like if you could build one for yourself - we all have... You will have tried to imagine what you would do to make it stand out from the crowd. Crump has stated he wanted to build the best for the best. Dubs be damned.

Like you, I am entirely fascinated and intrigued by Pine Valley Golf club, and that is everything about it, from its incredible beginnings, to a fascinating history, its simple product and straight forward delivery. And like you, I am yet to see it in the flesh, so it is entirely possible that I am hopelessly off the mark, which is just fine. I will continue to read and enjoy the comments and ideas that this group discusses here about PVGC.

[Mac Plumart]

My mind keeps focusing on Crump's epiphany that trajectory would be the key to his masterpiece.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[Ronald Montesano]

It's akin to playing golf in the 3rd dimension. To demand a shot neither too high nor low, to plan for it and execute it in the golf course, is one tough bowl of soup, even for a bear.

i'm in the same situation as you in that I've neither played the course nor toured it. Knowing that a designer spoke of trajectory as a focal point 100 years ago, back when trajectory of a golf shot (based on equipment of the day) was different is most intriguing.

[Mac Plumart]

Interesting thoughts, RoMo.

Simply brainstorming and searching for input/ideas/thoughts on this.

Here is a list of significant courses built before Pine Valley was finished.

San Francisco
Somerset
Oakland Hills
Merion
Nat'l Golf Links
Pinehurst #2
Oakmont
Garden City Golf Club
Chicago
The Country Club
Maidstone


Here is a list of courses built fairly soon after Pine Valley.

Fishers Island
Quaker Ridge
Riviera
Oak Hill East
Winged Foot West
Winged Foot (east)
Baltusrol (lower)
Los Angeles
Pebble Beach
Inverness


Is there any noted changes in architectural styles? 

I've bolded Tillinghast courses, as he had some before and after, and he seemed to have a decent amount of input with regards to Pine Valley.


I haven't played all of these, but of the one's I have played it seems to me that the CBM/Raynor courses have some of this aerial/trajectory architectural styles factored in.  Am I off?

Thoughts in general?

[Sven Nilsen]

First thought, you might want to move San Francisco to the after list, if c. 1918 is your benchmark date (The Tillinghast Association has his work there after his work at Quaker Ridge).

Second, I'd spend some time looking in to how many of the before courses were altered over the years.  Pinehurst and Oakmont, for example, are courses that evolved over time, much like Pine Valley.

[Mac Plumart]

Thanks on the SFGC, Sven.  I think I got those number from Golf Digest...but will look into it.

I realize courses evolved over time, some dramatically so.  But do you not even think we can gather basic design intent/styles from the way the courses are laid out now?

[Sven Nilsen]

Thanks on the SFGC, Sven.  I think I got those number from Golf Digest...but will look into it.

I realize courses evolved over time, some dramatically so.  But do you not even think we can gather basic design intent/styles from the way the courses are laid out now?

Depends on the course.

For example, Ross' crowned greens at Pinehurst may not have been as intentional as most think.  Pete Dye discusses the effects of top-dressing on those greens in his intro to Discovering Donald Ross and suggests their built up nature was not planned.

The point had more to do with figuring out an accurate list of courses for your exercise of comparing and contrasting.

Maidstone, for example, although initially laid out well before Pine Valley, may in reality be a "newer" course.  It went from 5,000 yards in 1916 to 6,200 by 1926, with work being during that time period by Raynor and the Park clan.

Oakland Hills South was started after the Pine Valley project was initiated, and was completed before all 18 holes at Pine Valley were on the ground, so what are to we make of that as an example of a "before" course?

Part of this process is going to be identifying the style or styles of course being built up to 1916 (probably a better date, as 14 of the 18 PV holes were in place at that point).  I'd put Myopia on any before course list, as I tend to believe that what was done there is an example of the paradigm shift that occurred after the initial wave of geometric design.  So you're looking at the middle ground after the early Findlay's and Bendelow's (and after the changes to the ball) and before we start seeing the likes of Thomas, Tillie, Stiles & Van Kleek, Flynn & Toomey, MacKenzie, Behr and others in their prime. 

The hardest part is going to be tracking any influence that extended from PV onto other courses.  Would you say Augusta was influenced by PV?  How about Cypress?  How about anything by Maxwell (did his exposure to Tillie's work create a chain even before he stepped foot on the property)? 

Its an interesting question for which I don't think there's an easy answer, and looking at a mere sampling of courses isn't going to provide much in the way of insight.

[Mac Plumart]

The hardest part is going to be tracking any influence that extended from PV onto other courses. 

Yeah, that is it.

Trying to brainstorm a way to do that.  If you've got an idea, I think it would be fun to kick around.

[Sven Nilsen]

The hardest part is going to be tracking any influence that extended from PV onto other courses. 

Yeah, that is it.

Trying to brainstorm a way to do that.  If you've got an idea, I think it would be fun to kick around.

I think you need to start with a tree of influence.  Who saw it, what they did that may have been influenced by it and who saw that work.

Would make an interesting IMO piece.

The hard part for me to grasp is that it seems like a lot of guys were developing similar concepts around the same time, which makes the idea of narrowing things down to particular influences very tricky.  In a sense, they were all influencing each other, and as folks started to write about golf more as the 20's went on, you have a collective movement of change that picks up bits and pieces from various places.  Throw in that a lot of individual course design is site specific, and you're left with a bit of a quandry in trying to determine exactly what features are derived from what influences.

I keep thinking about this description of the Evolution of GCA:  http://www.historyshots.com/golfarchitecture/index.cfm

Any description of the history of course design that compartmentalizes that history into segments does the conversation a disservice.  Quick example, how do you discuss Doak without also discussing Mackenzie and Dye?  Yet the chart would have you believe they are each identified with separate philosophies, when in reality the philosophies of each overlap (or to be more accurate, perhaps the best description is that the philosophies evolve, or build upon what came before).

 

[JESII]

My mind keeps focusing on Crump's epiphany that trajectory would be the key to his masterpiece.


Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Yeah. I think it's undeniable that Pine Valley is as demanding of a competent aerial game as any I've played. If I were to play it with 1920 era equipment it would be shockingly difficult to play well. Was that possibly an accident? Doubt it.

Isn't part of the architects mission to create shots which the player is not adept at?

Doak likes to make really cool and interesting green complexes. I think that's at least in part because this provides a real distinct challenge to most players. Certainly a more enjoyable challenge than having to hit a good drive to find land, but a scoring challenge none the less.

Pine Valley is tied with Shinnecock for the best course I've played. I love every hole! I hear others talk of Golf Course Architecture as an artform and I can't see it...except for Pine Valley. This could be an untouched museum piece and it would blow you away. Every other course I've played (good, bad or great) needs to be played to be useful, not PV...but I don't see it as the slightest bit strategic.

I see it as a pure test of "can you do it?".

Today I can play 18 from Crump's tee with a 3 wood and an 8 iron so the pure challenge of hitting a drive and a long iron is greatly reduced but the message is still clear. The hazards are still round wreckers.

Maybe we're a softer class of golfer and our softening has matched/offset the advances in equipment. Could that be the reason PV has remained right at the top for 90 years?

[archie_struthers]

   


Redundancy be damned , I'm sitting  here remembering Pete Dye in the bunkers left of six fairway, just sitting there shaking his head and laughing. I so wish I asked him what he was thinking , but didn't dare.  It seems like yesterday, and he was jumping up and down testing the firmness of the sand. These bunkers aren't really random, not like many strewn throughout the woods on many holes, but line up like sentries flanking the fairway. Crump definitely wanted them here, they weren't free form or accidental.  What wold they punish most , a low sniper !


Pine Valley is wide, so your shot shape isn't forced on most tee shots, but the preferred shot of the day , the spinning hook , doesn't work too good on many of the approach shots. In most cases left is really dead , more so than right.  Crump may have had a little Nicklaus in him , or Trevino . I'd love to hear about his personal ball flight. No matter who , it's hard not to have your own image of a good shot impact your design . It's just human nature .

[archie_struthers]

 

My thought exactly James, and what got me going on this bent was thinking of how Crump would build a course to confound the experts of his day.  The equipment and ball flights just didn't lend themselves to the shots required.  He built  an unassailable fortress, it just happens to have incredible greens , flows perfectly and is quite beautiful. But first and foremost it was a brute!

[Jeb Bearer]

Thanks for all the information guys, I have enjoyed reading this thread and learning more about PV and Crump. A lot of the conversation has been about how it was supposed to be a penal design, to test the best, without regard for the duffer. Now, PV obviously is a great course. People love playing it, it is consistently ranked among the best in the world, it has stood the test of time - every measure of greatness there is PV excels at. So why, for all we talk about options and enjoyment for all skill levels, and not pandering to the 1%, why is it that a brutal, merciless course that is penal rather than strategic can be considered so good? What is it about the design that differentiates it from all the other penal, aerial courses that have been built since the RTJ era?

[archie_struthers]

  


Aha Jeb , a marvelous query. Sure to get some great answers.

[Ronald Montesano]

Is it brutal? Is it merciless? I've played The Monster (Catskills) and heard tales of Thunderhill (Cleveland area) and would consider those brutal and merciless.

Pine Valley seems eminently fair. Difficult for sure, but a course that rewards a good shot.

For those who have played PV, how many sets of tees and if there is a middle set, what is the longest forced carry from the middle set?

The ancients say it ain't golf unless you can putt from tee to green. I say, if you can play some variety of a seven-iron for every shot, it's golf.

[Scott Warren]

Almost two whole pages and only one passing mention of Harry Colt?