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.


Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #150 on: January 08, 2013, 10:11:15 PM »
David,

I agree with you in so much as I don't believe some of the earlier descriptions/opinions reflected the greatness of the holes, but a couple that your post generated have done that.

I must play a different Pine Valley to these guys. I don't see all that much of the course I love (and find to be massively FUN!) in their descriptions.

Jamie refers to the incredible and varied greens. I know you have seen this thread before, but as a refresher to how wonderful they are (you just have to wade through some of Mucci at his Mucciest): http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,52310.0.html

David_Elvins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #151 on: January 09, 2013, 02:41:12 AM »
Jamie, Scott, Pat,

Thanks for the replies.  From reading and photos over the years it does look to have an unbelievable set of green complexes which goes a long way to being a great course. 

I suppose that great courses though, get the balance of playability spot on more than most.  Easy enough to tempt you to take a risk, but not so easy as to not punish you for trying to bite off more than you can chew and not executing well enough.  And that is I suppose the big question mark I would have before seeing the course. No doubt I will know for sure when/if I ever do visit Pine Valley. 

On going back through this thread I suspect that there is something else going on.  With the legendary toughness of the course, it seems like everyone has a war story and loves talking up the big numbers they have seen or had more than at any other course.  Is this a fair conclusion?
Ask not what GolfClubAtlas can do for you; ask what you can do for GolfClubAtlas.

Mark Chaplin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #152 on: January 09, 2013, 03:00:55 AM »
I'd say Pine Valley is a far better match play than stroke play course. There are opportunities to take risks in matchplay but the damage is limited. Would the Crump Cup hold as much interest if it were 72 holes of strokeplay?

I think Scott would agree with me whilst visiting for the first time and having lunch is a wonderful experience. It goes off the scale when you have a few days to relax, take in the vastness of the property and enjoy the company of members and fellow guests over dinner before retiring to the house for putting and a few more drinks.
Cave Nil Vino

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #153 on: January 09, 2013, 05:33:16 AM »
dave,

I agree - and obviously I think that balance was nailed more than our American brethren seem to. I am neither an absolute flusher or a reckless golfer and I see enough places on the golf course to take some risks in pursuit of reward.

The drive at the 1st may not be the place, and it's probably unfortunate the discussion got railroaded that way a bit, but those shots are there if you ask me.

And I do think the toughness gets overplayed. It's a difficult course, but a massive amount of that is in your head, and the opening stretch of five holes are all among the toughest 8-9 on he course. That headf**ks a lot of people before they get going. If you can stand on the 6th tee in one piece then you're a great chance of making a score.

Chappers,

It's a great match course, absolutely, but I also love the challenge and different mental experience of a stroke round, knowing that while doubles and triples need to be avoided, you must also make the most of your chances at making birdie when they come.

And yeah, familiarity strips away all the mental torture propagated by people telling tall tales of 20s made and bets begged off at the first green. And I will say, almost all of the people I know who have played the course have done so numerous times, very few one-and-dones.

Pat Mucci spoke of "standing on the first tee and not knowing where the green is", but that is a one-time thing and I find it far more interesting and useful to discuss how a course plays for someone who knows it somewhat than for someone completely blind to it playing their first round.

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #154 on: January 09, 2013, 05:50:01 AM »
 8) >:( :D


Scott you are so right about one thru five . Whenever I could get thru them unscathed I would think here we go ,  good day today. There is just so much inherent danger on two and five,  great point!    Not that you can't go astray later. Any hole can jump up and bite you. What's great is there isn't one hole you don't think is impossible in its own right. No three woods threaded thou a keyhole needed, so to speak.

But , we all know the drill. You get to one tee , golf endorphins kicking in , and have to beat down your urge to attack, on the other hand , pine valley demands you really swing at it and hit it solid. You cant fake it here, and just bump it around in front of the green.

 As many have said, once you get a real comfort level here, the home court advantage is incredible. Note the Crump winners board. Lots of repeat winners, and locals too. Familiarity with the angles off the tee make you swing freely, which some never do there. A good caddy helps , as you believe his reads on the green , particularly the speeds .

Patrick_Mucci

Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #155 on: January 09, 2013, 08:18:46 AM »
Scott,

Sometimes, first play is the easiest because you don't know where the trouble is.

Repeat play brings with it the cumulative knowledge of knowing where more and more trouble is, making the golfer more defensive.

While # 1 doesn't present the most threatening visual on the tee, # 2 is certainly intimidating.
It's always great to walk off # 2 green with a par.
I don't find the view from # 3 and # 4 tee to be intimidating, but surely the view from # 5 tee has to be one of the most intimidating visuals in golf.

While I consider # 6 a birdie hole, the first one in the round, and I've started rounds with birdies on # 1 and # 2, but I consider # 6 to be the first birdie hole on the golf course.

Even knowing that # 6 is a birdie hole I'm still leary about going too far right off the tee or hitting a solid tee shot slightly left and through the fairway.  Distance and direction control at a premium. 

I consider # 7 a birdie hole, but I find the tee shot so critical to success or failure that I'm reluctant to swing away with abandon.

On # 8, most golfers with experience debate both club selection and direction off the tee, so there's an element of uncertainty there.

For some reason, I'm not overly comfortable on # 9 tee, so halfway thruogh the round I've been on edge on virtually every tee, and, it's mostly due to my increased familiarity with the golf course.

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #156 on: January 09, 2013, 10:34:49 AM »
 ;D :D ;)


Pat , it's funny you mention 6 as the first birdie hole , its so true.  It's tough to get it close on one and three, unless the pin is front left on the third.  Two is easier to birdie , but youhave to get your distance spot on, of course this is normal , not tournament pins. Four is probably the easiest birdie on the first segment (1 thru 5) unless it's real firm, when it becomes one of the hardest because the green just runs away from you. Three is tantamount to birdie on #5, nuff said.

You can cautiously attack #6 thru #12, making sure to pay attention to sucker pins. If you can control the ball with your short irons, you've got a real chance to stuff a couple on #6, 7 or 8. The left green on nine is arguably the best on the golf course , so you have to tread lightly here, but then step on the pedal again on 10,11 and 12. 

Take a deep breath , play 13-15 cautiously , and then go back to work on the closing holes. As has often been stated, Pine Valley is so good because it's hard without being ridiculous, all the shot are eminently playable, just pay attention and don't miss any.  It's that simple.  Oh , one more thing , try to putt like Crenshaw.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #157 on: January 09, 2013, 07:06:39 PM »
Archie,

When I think about it, I tend to play my approach into # 1 defensively and short, hence, unless the hole is in the front of the green, I don't have a birdie putt and am happy to get down in two.

The second green is frightening, even with its recent softening, certainly not a birdie hole when you consider the difficulty of the drive and the blind nature of the second shot and the slope and contours of the green.

Ditto # 3.  Perhaps the easiest hole location is anything short and left, allowing balls hit right to feed down and leave one a birdie putt., but, I don't view it as a birdie hole.

# 4 becomes easier with a great drive, but still, getting close to the hole with the green running away from you is difficult.
I've adopted the "go long" strategy on that green.  I'd rather have an uphill 30 footer than a 20 foot downhiller.

# 5, agree, 3 is a birdie, even with the softened green.

So, you step onto the tee at # 6 and breath a slight sigh of relief.
All  you have to do now is drive it so that you're attacking into the slope on the green, using it as a backstop and corrective deflection pad.

So, 7 thru 12 do present birdie opportunties.

Not so sure about # 16 when the hole is cut right, as that's a pretty ferocious and intimidating hole location.

# 17 a definite birdie hole and if you can hit the punchbowl like 18th green, you should have a decent birdie putt.

The course has definite ebb and flow in it.
A time to be ultra defensive and a time to try to take advantage of what's given.

Those that don't pay attention are doomed to never play to their handicap.

Paul_Turner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #158 on: January 09, 2013, 08:04:50 PM »
Which greens have been recently softened at Pine Valley?  I heard 15th and now 5th too? 

Why soften the greens now? It's not as if green speeds have changed recently.
can't get to heaven with a three chord song

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #159 on: January 09, 2013, 08:12:03 PM »
 ;D 8) ;)


Pat , really good point about four green , takes a long time or lots of three putts to get this green figured out.  When its firm and fast ,it's one of the most challenging second shots on the golf course because if you leave it short , fugetaboutit.   On qualifying day at the Crump , hit it over and chip back . It's that hard to judge the speed of the green over the ridge.


Patrick_Mucci

Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #160 on: January 09, 2013, 08:12:41 PM »
Paul,

# 2 and # 5 were softened

While they're still very challenging, I hated to see them altered, I think it sets a bad precedent.

But, as long as they've decided to alter the greens, they should restore the original pimple/hump in the 18th green.

If # 15 was altered, I suspect it was altered like # 5

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #161 on: January 10, 2013, 08:36:03 AM »
8) >:( :D

Scott you are so right about one thru five . Whenever I could get thru them unscathed I would think here we go ,  good day today.




Archie,

I played in one caddy tournament during my time there. Stood on the 6th tee 1 under par.

6 - 9 - 6 on the next 3 holes and I was on my way to a runner up finish.

I must have been thinking what you said above...


archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #162 on: January 10, 2013, 09:06:45 AM »
Sully,


Perfect,  just think it you hadn't built up that big cushion you might have come in 3rd,

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #163 on: January 10, 2013, 09:37:53 AM »
2 or 3 years ago in the first round of Crump qualifying I stood on that same 6th tee 10 over and shot 77 or 78...mindboggling.

Not sure why Scott would think the course is in my head...

Paul_Turner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #164 on: January 10, 2013, 09:39:47 AM »
Patrick

The second was perhaps the best green on the course.  The club decides to change it (and others) after 100 years, it's a terrible precedent.    What a way to celebrate a centenary  ???
can't get to heaven with a three chord song

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #165 on: January 10, 2013, 09:56:02 AM »
 ;D  8) ;D


Sully , a corollary to your disaster follows.

There was a nice fellow , local  member named Nelson Dane ,  who I believe has passed , RIP.   I'm sure he wouldn't mind me sharing , as he loved Pine Valley. Nellie, as his friends called him, was an avid golfer , who carried a five handicap . His five was due to hard work and persistence, rather than an abundance of natural talent . He didn't hit it real long, or putt great , but he was a dogged competitor.

He would always get so excited to play Pine Valley, and even though he was there a lot, often lamented to the caddies of his inability to bring his "a" game with him from his home club of Burlington, NJ.  One day I was in a loop with an old PVGC caddy , Cappy, who always had something funny to say at just the right time in the round.  I enjoyed being out with him for this reason, even though he took all the shortcuts and invariably left me to read most of the greens.

So we have Mr Dane and three good golfers one  day, and Nellie was striping it early in the round. When he stuffed it on three for birdie he was one under. He hit an unusually long drive for him on four and it got to the bottom of the hill. He knocked it on made par and off he went to five. He needed driver here and as is often the case hit a good one and still made bogey . He played six and seven without incident and hit a good drive on eight.  The players went to the tee house to get something to drink and it gave Cappy and I a minute to chat in the fairway.    

I mentioned that "Nellie" was really hitting it good and that it just might be his day.   Cappy responded with a great line, "he can linger but he can't last" .  It cracked me up.  Mr Dane came walking over the hill, with drinks for both of us and proceeded to hit a marvelous little wedge up next to the hole. I gave a knowing wink to my loop mate , and we cut across to the ninth fairway.

Sure enough , mr Dane nuked one on nine, and had just about 170 to a green that he normally needed furniture to reach in two. He asked me what to hit and I gave my patented response to this kind of question, its 170 and a little uphill. We were  playing the tougher green on the left. Ok he said chuckling, knowing I  would never suggest a club , and played a marvelous five iron smack dab in the middle of the green. Now that was quite a shot I thought to myself , he swung free and easy with no fear of the ominous bunker to the right , it was his day !  

To this day I vividly remember reading that putt for him. He had hit it safely to the middle , but the pin was slightly forward, leaving a tricky downhiller. No worries , I'm thinking , I'll just remind him its a lag, as he putts pretty good. What I didn't realize  till we got to the green was sometime during the walk from fairway to green he  had done the math. The magic  was gone, and the confident golfer who just hit a marvelous shot had left the building.

He looked at the putt for way too long , and sensing trouble,I tried to reassure him that  it was just like the lag on two he had played so well  an hour ago. But , as stated , the magic was gone. He knew this was for 33 , and two putts would give him his first sub par nine holes ever at PVGC.  He hit it way too hard and it rolled past the hole, continuing on and on down the slope. He de-greened it !  Trying to help , quietly suggested a Texas Wedge for shot number four. He grabbed his wedge , shanked the chip and it kicked dead right into the bunker. Five shot later he finished the hole.

As we walked to the tenth tee, Cappy knowingly winked at me. As you might imagine , the back nine wasn't magical !
 
« Last Edit: January 10, 2013, 10:13:21 AM by archie_struthers »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #166 on: January 10, 2013, 02:05:52 PM »
8) >:( :D

Scott you are so right about one thru five . Whenever I could get thru them unscathed I would think here we go ,  good day today.

Archie,

I played in one caddy tournament during my time there. Stood on the 6th tee 1 under par.
6 - 9 - 6 on the next 3 holes and I was on my way to a runner up finish.
I must have been thinking what you said above...

Jim,

That's one of my points about PV, you can NEVER relax.
You have to guard yourself on every hole.
Some holes just more than others.

Getting through the 5th hole one under is spectacular, but by no means a guarantee of a good round.

The funny thing about PV is that my best round occured when I could barely hit the ball 200 yards, but, I was straight and was hitting the ball on the clubface, albeit, not far.  To give you an idea, I hit a good drive and a 3-wood into 18, but, I was even par for the round.
At the time, as Cint said, I knew my limitations and didn't try anything heroic.
Maybe that's one of the keys, just play within yourself, fairways and greens.

Unfortunately, with my strength and distance back, despite having a number of birdies in each round, I haven't been able to duplicate that feat. 

Going off of those generous fairways takes it's toll since recovering to the green is almost impossible.
And, playing out, safe, doesn't guarantee a bogey.

The first time I took some fellows there, a good friend had the best round of his life going for him.
He drove it dead in the middle of # 15.
I told him to take a 3-iron and lay up.  He wanted to take a 3-wood.  We argued.  He won.  He hit 3-wood.  He made 15.

In the same round, another friend, a high handicap, had the best round of his life, at the time and for years to come at PV.
But, he was a straight driver who played very, very conservatively.
He never found trouble and he never made worse than bogey.

So, it's a really interesting, beguiling golf course.
More than anything you have to think, and if you can't think, you have to get lucky and have a caddy who can think for you.
Absent proper guidance, the sky's the limit when it comes to score.

And, when the greens get really firm and fast, I think the course approaches being unplayable.

Like Seminole and Ross, I don't think Crump ever envisioned 11 or more on a stimp.




Patrick_Mucci

Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #167 on: January 10, 2013, 02:13:45 PM »
Archie,

That line is also in heavy use at Westhampton and NGLA.

It's a great line.

So much of golf is positive reinforcement.

How many times have you been over a medium to long putt and thought that you were going to make it, and you did.

How many times have you been over a 3 footer and had your doubts and missed it.

The problem with downhill putts is that you don't want to leave yourself another one.

At courses like PV and Sebonack, I could put you on every green and chances are you wouldn't break 80 or 90 when they're firm and fast.

JSlonis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #168 on: January 10, 2013, 03:21:53 PM »
Patrick

The second was perhaps the best green on the course.  The club decides to change it (and others) after 100 years, it's a terrible precedent.    What a way to celebrate a centenary  ???

Paul,

What are you supposed to do when the course was built with contours at a time when green speeds might have been 5-6 ft on a Stimp compared with the 10-11 ft you commonly find now? Right or wrong, golfers have become accustomed to quicker greens. To have them rolling a few feet slower to accommodate all the slope and contour isn't going fly. I think the club has done a great job in minimizing any green changes so far.

The 2nd green really wasn't changed that much. It's still a unbelievable green. Same thing on #5.  The 5th green was incredibly difficult for such a tough hole. You could hit a damn good tee shot the ended up toward the back of the green and then not be able to keep your first putt on the green if the hole was on the front. The back slope was softened and the hole gained a couple extra hole locations. Prior to this work, you could pin across the front above the false fronts and in a 3 ft circle on the back right. It's still a brutal par but a great improvement in my view.

I believe there was less work done to #15 this winter than was done to #'s 2&5 in the past. Some softening to the back left slope past the false front. I'm pretty sure the huge false front was kept largely intact.

Paul_Turner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #169 on: January 10, 2013, 03:40:50 PM »
JSlonis

Why wouldn't keeping the original green contours slower "fly"?   Wouldn't that be the sensible thing to do if you respect Crump et al's architecture?

Why change now?
can't get to heaven with a three chord song

JSlonis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #170 on: January 10, 2013, 05:46:50 PM »
JSlonis

Why wouldn't keeping the original green contours slower "fly"?   Wouldn't that be the sensible thing to do if you respect Crump et al's architecture?

Why change now?

To answer your question about respecting Crump's architecture...I'd say that I think that Crump likely never envisioned what we have for modern green speeds. From the architecture he gave us at Pine Valley, I'd say he had a pretty brilliant vision of what he wanted to accomplish and he would've adjusted his design to still provide a stern challenge given modern conditions.

Why wouldn't it fly?...Because I don't think I'm the only golfer that finds slow greens a bit boring and less fun to play. I'm sure everyone would still want to play courses like Pine Valley if the greens were slower but at least for me it wouldn't be as fun.  I think slow greens are easier to putt and easier to chip and pitch to, regardless of the slope/contours. If you don't have the fear of the ball running out, it takes away some of the worry and doubt away.

Agronomy has improved a tremendous amount in the last 20 yrs. I just don't see things going backwards in regard to course conditioning and maintenance.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #171 on: January 10, 2013, 06:01:31 PM »
Jamie,

While the changes to # 5 and # 15 are barely noticeable, the change to # 2 is noticeable.

As I indicated, it's still a great green.

My concern is centered on increased green speeds.

Once we thought that 11 was top speed, now we're hearing examples of 12, 13 and higher.

So, as green speeds increase aren't more and more of the great greens in jeopardy of being altered/flattened to accomodate more speed ?

It's nothing more than the domino theory and one of the reasons that I tend to resist flattening to accomodate higher speeds.

Winged Foot did it, Merion did it and Pine Valley has done it.

The real question is:  WHEN WILL IT STOP ?

JSlonis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #172 on: January 10, 2013, 06:17:29 PM »
Pat,

I really think that clubs with good leadership realize there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to green speeds. At Tavistock we have kept detailed Stimp readings nearly everyday of the golf season for the last two years. One of the main reasons we did it was to improve the overall consistency from day to day. We know what is too fast for our green designs and we strive to keep the speeds at a reasonable pace below that. The same can be said for most of the top clubs that I've played.

I think the USGA and the Masters bear some responsibility in blame for over the top speeds. It's dangerous to talk about speeds of 12-14 or even 15ft.  Like you, I've played enough to know what's a realistic Stimp number and when that number gets falsely stretched, the public tends to start to believe it.


Patrick_Mucci

Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #173 on: January 10, 2013, 07:38:08 PM »

I really think that clubs with good leadership realize there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to green speeds. At Tavistock we have kept detailed Stimp readings nearly everyday of the golf season for the last two years. One of the main reasons we did it was to improve the overall consistency from day to day. We know what is too fast for our green designs and we strive to keep the speeds at a reasonable pace below that. The same can be said for most of the top clubs that I've played.

I think the USGA and the Masters bear some responsibility in blame for over the top speeds. It's dangerous to talk about speeds of 12-14 or even 15ft.  Like you, I've played enough to know what's a realistic Stimp number and when that number gets falsely stretched, the public tends to start to believe it.

Jamie,

I believe that one of Pine Valley's greatest assets is it's form of governance,............ a dictatorship with a ten year or so tenure.
Ditto Seminole

Had Pine Valley been governed like most local clubs, you probably wouldn't recognize much of Crump's work.

I agree, I think ANGC, the USGA and TV helped create the perceived need for speed.

Like you, I've played PV when the greens were 8 and below and when they were too fast for me.
Until you've played those greens, in a medal play round, when they're at their higher speeds, you just can't imagine their difficulty and the tension they create.

I'll bet everyone on this site that they can't two putt from 8 feet on a number of greens and that's after they've been softened.
8 feet.  Seems like nothing, but on a sidehill/downhill putt, it's frightening.

While I agree that the stewardship, other than for the trees, has been conservative and true to Crump's design intent, I worry when I hear that greens have to be softened or disfigured, depriving them of the character that made them great, to accomodate the higher speeds.
As I asked, where does it end ?

Once the ANGC's and WF's and PV's of the world do it, they set the tempo for all of the local clubs and suddenly you begin to smell the ether.


JSlonis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: More Pine Valley architecture
« Reply #174 on: January 10, 2013, 08:04:45 PM »
Pat,

Thanks for the input. Very well said.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back