[Brett_Morrissy]

Isn't it less about playing to angles,and more about the shot execution?

From the book Mac is referencing; p16.
"He (Crump) insisted that a bad shot---mis-hit or far off line---should be severely penalized."

So, unless the golfer executes his hot correctly/perfectly, then great trouble awaits his next.

[Mac Plumart]

Seems like penal architecture, plain and simple.

No?

[Scott Warren]

No.

What's written above pertains to severity of hazards and off piste areas, not to the nature of the architecture.

They are completely different things - entirely unrelated.

[Jeb Bearer]

No.

What's written above pertains to severity of hazards and off piste areas, not to the nature of the architecture.

They are completely different things - entirely unrelated.

That's true about the nature of the hazards, but isn't the placement of the hazards what makes the course penal? Meaning instead of being placed to guard the ideal line for the next shot, they are placed to penalize the mishit.

[Mac Plumart]

Jim is saying the course isn't strategic, right?  And Pat agrees.  And from Brett's post seems to further support their claims, "He (Crump) insisted that a bad shot---mis-hit or far off line---should be severely penalized."

Scott, you seem to suggest that is not the case.  Right?

Can you all reconcile these contradictory statements for those of us that haven't played the course?

[Scott Warren]

Mac,

Again, that quote from Brett's post has nothing to do with the nature of the architecture and everything to do with the severity of the hazards and the course as a whole.

At the 1st, 6th, 8th, 11th, 13th, 16th there are enormous benefits to be had by attacking the more challenging line off the tee - a greater carry, flirting with bunkers etc - ie. deciding on a strategy between the many on offer and executing it.

At the 1st you can greatly shorten your approach to a treacherous green by driving right. Driving right at the 6th both shortens the approach and opens up the green. At the 8th by taking the tougher line right and driving long you can find a rare flat spot from which to approach the tiny green. The 11th is far easier to hit by flirting with the bunkers down the right. At the 13th your terrifying approach can be simpler and shorter if you find the left-hand-side. The 16th presents far easier and allows you to not play towards the pond if you take on the maximum carry down the right.

At the 4th, 15th, 17th I see a lesser premium on finding a certain side, but those decisions are still part of playing the holes.

At the 2nd, if the pin is cut on either of the flanks you want to place your drive as close to the bunkers on the opposite side of the fairway as possible to create a better angle to those tough pins.

To steal a line from Mike Clayton - the centre of the fairway should never be a bad place to play from, but it shouldn't often be the best place to play from. That quote describes Pine Valley well.

A common issue on this site is confusing severe hazards/land with penal design. In my opinion, severe hazards can be a crucial part of making strategic design work, especially on a course as wide and otherwise bold as Pine Valley.

[Mac Plumart]

Interested to hear Jim's reply.

[Brett_Morrissy]

Mac, I am with Scott and a few others, but have not played it as I've said earlier.

The quote for the club book I posted was in regard to the "nature" of the hazards in play at PV. That is, if you find one of these hazards, they are potentially crippling to the advancement toward the hole, or your score card. Does the club still have the "no unplayable lie" in play? Which of course just enhances the nature of the hazards and may I say, the mystic.

To explain further by looking at the potential opposing view, or design---if Crump chose to allow a fairness for all golfers, so that all/most of the hazards were shallow perfectly raked sand bunkers, with no vegetation, maintained rough and under foliage (think Augusta National), and no Devils A...hole bunkers, and no coffin pits behind greens that are almost inescapable, or slopes off the back of greens that make up and downs rare and memorable, then for my way of thinking, this then clarifies that PV, if set up like this, then it would be clearer that it was not in the penal school.

For me, penal architecture, and again, happy to be corrected/educated, is water down both sides of a 20 m wide fairway, thick trees lining both sides of the fairway(Olympic), this is boring golf, which appeals to those that like difficult golf(I know a lot of golfers who think like this and blame the PGA TOUR for this), and think it is the best, actually, look at most setups for the US Open, I expect Merion will be a good example - bunkers miles away from the fairway in the middle of rough with slivers of cut fairway to land your ball, I was at Pebble after the last open, and they had just cut the fairways back to where they normally are, it was ridiculous how narrow the fairways were.  Width is strategic, narrow lines are penal.

Width is fun - narrow, both horizontally and vertically(trees) is not.

[Mac Plumart]

Brett...

I certainly get the concept.  And I'm not with or against Scott, as I have no first hand knowledge of the course.

Jim says the course isn't strategic at all. Pat didn't argue.  I'm interested to hear more.

As far as the quote you posted, I'll not argue with your take. But I do not fully agree, strategic hazards are generally not set up for shots far off line.

But, as I've mentioned, I'm not arguing for or against anyone...simply interested to learn more about the consensus #1 course in the world.

[Brett_Morrissy]

strategic hazards are generally not set up for shots far off line.

Mac - I am curious to hear more about your point here...can you expand a little please?

I always thought that the hole was strategic, and was a composite of parts to achieve this - bunkers, hazards, humps, bumps, surface tilt, etc.

Is not one of the fundamentals of strategic design, to tempt the player as close as possible to the hazard to gain advantage, and thus, if playing away(off line) from the hazard, giving the player a safer choice but adds to the challenge of the next shot?

[Mac Plumart]

Perhaps our interpreting this phrase in different ways is that we take it to mean different things.

You said an off line shot means playing away from a hazard purposefully.  I take it to mean a shot that is far off its intended line, not on purpose.  I get that from the quote in its entirety, which includes the term "mis-hit."  Which I take to mean, slice or hook.

But, like I mentioned, I'm keen to hear Jim's reply.

[Brett_Morrissy]

Mac...
I also get and agree that the term mis-hit and hitting away from the hazard are not the same - but I am curious to consider the the mental temptation at play - if there is room away from the hazard - it is interesting that many mis-hits head this way, in the back of the golfers mind, he knows there is safety in a specific area and the bailout can sometimes come in the form of a mis-hit.

ALL -
on the nastiness of the hazards - can we agree that this is only applicable on an inland site like this - surely, this kind of punishment would be too much on a coastal site? where the fairness question would be loud and often, I know that PV has plenty of wind, but not the kind of a coastal links, and that the blowing of well struck balls into these penal horrors would be too much to bare for even the most skilled of golfers?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brett...

I certainly get the concept.  And I'm not with or against Scott, as I have no first hand knowledge of the course.

Jim says the course isn't strategic at all. Pat didn't argue.  I'm interested to hear more.

Mac,

That's not quite what I agreed with.
Jim stated that being in the middle of the fairway didn't put you at a disadvantage, and I agreed with that.
I also stated that with certain hole locations, different sides of the fairway could be preferable, but, being in the middle of the fairway didn't hurt the golfer tactically


As far as the quote you posted, I'll not argue with your take. But I do not fully agree, strategic hazards are generally not set up for shots far off line.

But, as I've mentioned, I'm not arguing for or against anyone...simply interested to learn more about the consensus #1 course in the world.

[Mark Chaplin]

Scott - I wouldn't claim to have an indepth knowledge of either club although I've probably played Sunningdale 5:1 over Pine Valley. The similarities to me would be in the rolling land especially late in the front nine of both the New and Old courses. Sunningdale is extremely narrow compared with Pine Valley although the later is far more penal when you find the trouble. On saying that the heather can quickly steal a shot or two from you!

There are a few Pine Valley/Sunningdale members and add in their R&A memberships makes them pretty fortunate people in my book.

[Sean_A]

From what I have read, it seems difficult not to give Colt some credit for PV.  Its one thing for an archie to have associates who aren't credited, quite another to bring in well known outside experts for advice; Colt certainly fit the bill as a well known expert.  More importantly, it could well be that Crump conceived of an aerial course from Colt.  I think Colt was the first archie to really hammer home plateau greens on which most necessitate aerial approaching.  This is why I think of Colt as the father modern architecture.  The question I have is why did Colt favour the plateau green so much?  I have never found anything which demonstrated his penchant for this type of green location.  Of course, in theory anyway, Colt didn't favour blind shots so there is one partial explanation.  There may also be drainage reasons, but I think this would probably have been a secondary issue.  Why?  If what we are told is true, that Colt looked for his par 3s first (many of the famous and best ones featuring high sited greens) then built his course around them, then drainage doesn't really factor in.   

I think Scott is right to distinguish between penal architecture and penal hazards.  Penal hazards help highlight strategic architecture if placed right.  I don't know if PV is penal architecture or not, but it sounds like a more complicated case because the the fairways are meant to be generous whereas most penal architecture is associated with narrow fairways flanked by death.  I don't know if the width of PV is a product of the era it was designed when fairways were more generous than now, or if the design was meant to keep golfers in the game for approaching and only punish the badly off-line tee shot. 

Thanks all.  The discussion has been most enlightening.  Especially Mark's comment about PV being much wider than Sunny.  I didn't think Sunny was narrow, but I wouldn't call it generously wide.  The width comment makes me want to play PV more than ever.

Ciao

[Scott Warren]

Some interesting info on the changes made to the routing while Colt was involved, compared to Crump's proposed routing. Fairly hard to marginalise Colt's input.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,51979.msg1192636.html#msg1192636

[Mac Plumart]

Thanks, Scott. Great link.

[archie_struthers]

 

Sean , I'm not necessarily buying in that the aerial concept was more Colt than Crump.  The genius of the fifth hole linking to the ridge line on six notwithstanding,  are you saying that its Colt , not Crump , was the genesis behind the architecture. Doesn't history.prove otherwise?  I'll let the scholars debate this further, but it flies in the face of my understanding.

Certainly the linkage Colt suggested to get from four green to sixth tee, which resulted in a much longer and spectacular fifth hole is significant , as is much work finishing the course after  Crump's untimely demise. But  the very idea of how to build it?.....

[Tim_Weiman]

Scott,

I am inclined to agree with your assessment of specific holes where there is an advantage to place one's tee shot on a certain part of the fairway.

However, I think that is only part of the story. My experience at Pine Valley is limited to three occasions with the first in 1985 just to watch the Walker Cup and not play the course. When I did play, my game was about a 10 handicap at the time.

Honestly, my approach was to "manage" my way around the course as conservatively as a could. That meant aiming for the middle of fairways and greens, except for #5 where I very modestly laid up and was happy to walk away with a bogey four. If I recall correctly my first round was an 89 staying out of severe trouble but three putting six times.

My point is that Pine Valley for all the talk about wide fairways - and they are - does possess an intimidating quality. In part that is due to what can happen if you do go off line. But, there is an additional factor: who wants to go to Pine Valley and play poorly, especially if you know you might not be back for the rest of your life?

Take #1 tee shot. Of course, there is a big advantage playing down the right side. But, it takes both a skilled and confident player. It just didn't seem to me like a wise thing to even attempt. Who want to risk blowing up the first hole?

Then, too, even Bob Lewis in the final day of the Walker Cup hit his tee shot right down the middle on #16. Why would I try to play it any different?


 

[Sean_A]

Sean , I'm not necessarily buying in that the aerial concept was more Colt than Crump.  The genius of the fifth hole linking to the ridge line on six notwithstanding,  are you saying that its Colt , not Crump , was the genesis behind the architecture. Doesn't history.prove otherwise?  I'll let the scholars debate this further, but it flies in the face of my understanding.

Certainly the linkage Colt suggested to get from four green to sixth tee, which resulted in a much longer and spectacular fifth hole is significant , as is much work finishing the course after  Crump's untimely demise. But  the very idea of how to build it?.....

Archie

I am not talking about specifics.  Generally, I think its reasonable that Colt be given some credit for the design of PV.  I am not sure why anybody would think he shouldn't.  If I understand correctly, Crump requested help and Colt gave it. 

So far as aerial golf, again, not being specific to holes at PV.  Generally, I think Colt was an advocate of greens on naturally high spots.  I don't know for sure, but my theory is Colt was the first archie to actually seek out high spots for greens on a regular basis and be willing to alter the these areas to make them good greens sites.  My thought was that Crump may have recognized this rather new concept of purposeful aerial golf to greens rather than blindly over hills and decided such a course loaded with these sorts of approaches would not only be something outside of the box, but a difficult test of golf as well.

Ciao

[archie_struthers]

 


Sean , we need some specificity. Certainly Colt deserves some credit for PVGC , and gets it . However , the concept of forced carries and flighting of the shot seem eminently Crump as regards Pine Valley. To suggest otherwise surely is a stretch. Three of the par threes play downhill, and if anything drainage can be an issue on all of them.  So they didn't  use high sited greens save on #5.  Most of the holes have forced carries as a necessity, but the green sites are not raised in general.

My understanding is that. Colt theorized lengthening  # 5 as a bridge to get to the ridge  line on #6 , which really was a great change, but if he was so,much in Crump's head , why are #s  three, ten and fourteen antithetical to Colts' penchant for "perched" par threes?

[Kevin Lynch]

My point in saying the course isn't the least bit strategic is two-fold; I think people think a course must be highly strategic to be great and I disagree. I don't think a case can be made that the risk of playing for a preferred angle is worth the reward earned by achieving it...at PV.

Sorry I'm a little late to this conversation, but I wanted to talk more about the idea of playing for preferred angles.

From what I've read, many have dismissed the priority of playing for angles at Pine Valley.  If I'm understanding correctly, many feel the the potential advantage of playing for angles isn't worth the increased risk given the severity of the penalty.  I've seen comments that the middle of the fairway is generally a safe enough route.

I'm curious how much this opinion is influenced simply by the fact that we take "spinning" a golf ball for granted nowadays.  Do the slopes of the greens at Pine Valley strongly encourage you to come in from certain angles? 

I'm not thinking of a preferred angle to navigate a hazard, but rather a slope that can be used to simply keep an approach on the green (without technologically generated spin). 

I've never been to Pine Valley, so I'm not familiar with the green contouring, but was curious if the angles on the approach used to be much more important.

[Patrick_Mucci]

My point in saying the course isn't the least bit strategic is two-fold; I think people think a course must be highly strategic to be great and I disagree. I don't think a case can be made that the risk of playing for a preferred angle is worth the reward earned by achieving it...at PV.

Sorry I'm a little late to this conversation, but I wanted to talk more about the idea of playing for preferred angles.

From what I've read, many have dismissed the priority of playing for angles at Pine Valley.  If I'm understanding correctly, many feel the the potential advantage of playing for angles isn't worth the increased risk given the severity of the penalty.  I've seen comments that the middle of the fairway is generally a safe enough route.

Kevin, if you understand the orientation and configuration of the greens at PV, the notion of playing for angles off the tee is minimal.

On a hole by hole basis, there are hole locations where driving to a particular side gives one an advantage, but, at what risk, what price ?
Is the potential for a double bogey or worse, worth the incremental advantage gained by trying to drive to the optimal fairway location.

I don't see a substantive strategic advantage on # 1, 2, 7, 15, 17 or 18
4, 6, 8*, 9*, 11, 12, 13, 16 have an advantage.  I asterisked 8 and 9 due to the dual greens.
On # 9 I think the left green has less of an advantage than the right green.
On # 8, the green in play that day alters where the ideal fairway location should be.

On # 11, too far left, in the fairway, and you're blocked out.
On # 12, I think it's more of a distance issue than a direction issue that determines angle into the green.
On # 13, so much depends upon the golfer's ability and the selection of the aerial vs the ground route.

On # 6, the steep slope of the right side of the green is the factor to contend with, thus drives to the far right, near disaster, aren't the ideal drive.
The closer you come to the end of the dogleg fairway, the better the angle of attack into the green.

On # 16, the lie, in relation to hole location, may be the most important factor

# 17 is a punchbowl fairway to a hybrid punchbowl green, but, far right in the fairway could be blocked.

In all cases, playing to the perimeter/flank of the fairway is a formula for disaster.

As Jim and I stated, you can't go wrong in the middle of every fairway.

I'm curious how much this opinion is influenced simply by the fact that we take "spinning" a golf ball for granted nowadays. 
Do the slopes of the greens at Pine Valley strongly encourage you to come in from certain angles? 

# 6 certainly does.
# 8, # 9 right, # 12, # 13 are probably the greens where angle matters most.

I'm not thinking of a preferred angle to navigate a hazard, but rather a slope that can be used to simply keep an approach on the green (without technologically generated spin). 

# 6 more than any other.

I've never been to Pine Valley, so I'm not familiar with the green contouring, but was curious if the angles on the approach used to be much more important.

[Tom_Doak]

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:

We've had many philosophical discussions here over the years on whether an amateur architect could still get it right in this more complicated day and age.  Clients like Ken Bakst and Mike Keiser know enough about golf that they could certainly try to design a course themselves ... especially since they have friends who can help, much like George Crump had at Pine Valley.  But, most of the modern developers prefer to work with a talented architect instead of trying to outdo them all.  There are occasional exceptions -- Bayonne, for example -- which have produced some very good courses but no Oakmonts or Pine Valleys.

However, my belief in the possibility was reinforced this fall with a visit to Himalayan Golf Club in Nepal, built by a retired Army major in a deep canyon on either side of a rushing mountain river.  I was dumbfounded as to how many cool things he'd done that I have not seen before ... partly because it's a severe site and necessity is the mother of invention, but mostly because there was no one there to talk him out of doing the cool stuff.  [He is friendly with Ron Fream who has offered him some help and encouragement along the way.] 

For example, the greens are tiny (mostly in the neighborhood of 2500 to 3500 square feet) and most professionals would have told you they were too small for the shots or out of scale with the grandeur of the place ... but playing them proved that to be entirely false.  Likewise, the fairways were zoysia mowed at a bit less than a one-inch height of cut, which no one in the USA would accept, but it played just fine.

I am sure that the course as it stands today would fly over the heads of many raters, but the same is probably true for what Pine Valley looked like in 1918.  Part of the reason such "amateur" courses are so good now is that they've had decades to fix the bugs and make everything work.  But most of the reason they are better is because they didn't rationalize away all the interesting things they could build; they dared to be different and then made it work.


P.S. to Sean:  I agree with you that Colt should probably get partial credit for Pine Valley, having seen his design notes for the course back in my college days.  But, the only reason he DOES get any credit is because he's famous.  If a lesser-known architect had provided the exact same advice that Colt did, he would get no credit at all ... unless it was Joe Burbeck and Ron Whitten was on a mission.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Obviously you were very impressed by what you saw in Nepal.

Why do you think that most American golfers wouldn't be impressed ?

And, do you ever envision someone not caring and just designing what they want to design ?

Regarding PV, I think you're 1000 % correct, had Colt been a lesser figure, he wouldn't be a footnote.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()