Does Oakmont look better on TV without all those trees ?

[Mark Studer]

Clay- believe it or not, the fairways have already been expanded  into many  fairway bunkers over the last 10 years . Examples are left drive zone on 5 , right drive area on 3, beyond the  sahara bunker in front of and flanking left on 8, beyond the cross bunker and to the green complex on 9, left drive zone on 11, left and right on 12,  especially in front of the cross bunker at 12. We even went back to  triplex mowers for fairways to follow those contours without damaging turf as per John Zimmers and Mr. Latshaw. You are absolutely correct about greenside bunkers ....the long term goal is to have balls run from the putting surface, across the fringe, a width of first cut(1 1/4 " for maintenance and turning greens mowers 180 degrees), then into the bunkers.  It is time consuming and expensive to make these changes  so they will continue to happen over time .

[GeoffreyC]

Ran

How about asking Mark Studer if he would agree to a feature interview?

[George Pazin]

The vistas on TV can't even compare to them live - neither can the contours of the greens & the elevation changes of the terrain.

If you live within driving range, you HAVE to come out.

As for the rough, it looks to be playing pretty tough, but I haven't seen as many simply hack it out's like last week at Oak Hill (how's that for poor English).

Maybe Mark Studer should travel the country to enlighten all the other clubs!  

[TEPaul]

SPDB:

It's my understanding that the massive tree removal program at Oakmont got started and well underway long before Tom Fazio got involved with Oakmont. And so Tom Fazio should not receive credit for it--or blame for not encouraging it!

GeoffreyC:

You said; "I wish Pine Valley would get a move on their tree program after seeing these results."

Pine Valley is definitely addressing an over-treed situation although they're going about it far more diliberately than Oakmont did, perhaps because they don't have US Amateur or US Open on their schedule or perhaps just because that's their way of doing things. But the tree situation there is being addressed.

But I certainly hope you don't mean to imply that PVGC should remove trees to the extent Oakmont did. Doing such a thing at PVGC would be a travesty and tragedy and such a thing should never be suggested. PVGC was designed as a golf course with a vastly different style than Oakmont and that's the most important thing to recognize. The use of trees by their designer, Crump, was obviously much different than Oakmont's designer--Fownes.

It seems to me Oakmont has already accomplished the ideal tree situation for them but for PVGC the ideal tree situation for that course would only be to remove trees that are inside the lines of their designed architecture, primarily bunkering and just leave the rest. This is the way Crump designed the course and the way he wanted it to be. He wanted the holes to be plenty wide and accomodating of bunkering and sandy waste areas but he also wanted the holes to be separated by trees--as he said so many times. Doing something else to the course would be a real denial of that interesting desire and design.

All PVGC needs to do with their trees is remove any that now encroach on their designed architecture that was meant to be clear of trees.  

[TEPaul]

"Maybe Mark Studer should travel the country to enlighten all the other clubs!"

Actually he sort of is--matter of fact he's about to go beyond just the country but where he's going doesn't exactly have a tree problem.

[GeoffreyC]

Tom

I agree with you but I hope you mean that all the bunkers that now sit in the shadows within the forest should be exposed.  I have a couple of photos from the left of #15 and behind #17 and #9 I believe where bunkers are all but buried within a canopy of trees.  PV could lose thousands of trees.

[TEPaul]

This tree removal thing for courses that really weren't designed to have trees massive amounts of trees is probably really going to build up a head of steam with the exposure Oakmont is getting and will get again about 100 times more visibly with the US Open. But before that the next up in tree removal will be Shinnecock! And guess what, while the high level cameras are at and around Shinnecock they just might pan on over to contigous NGLA and catch sight of continued massive tree removal there too!

[TEPaul]

"I agree with you but I hope you mean that all the bunkers that now sit in the shadows within the forest should be exposed.  I have a couple of photos from the left of #15 and behind #17 and #9 I believe where bunkers are all but buried within a canopy of trees.  PV could lose thousands of trees."

Geoffrey:

I do indeed mean that. Trees should be removed at PVGC that encroach or get in the way of play into or out of any bunker on that golf course. That probably would be in the thousands. But if and when that was done the golf course and its holes would still very much be separated by trees as it was intended to be!

[George Pazin]

Tom P -

Did George Crump leave anything to indicate that he intended for the course to have the holes separated by trees? Photos from Geoff S's Golden Age book sure seem to show a pretty barren landscape.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Studer,

How much of your membership "getting it" is attributable to your admissions policies over the last 20 years ?

TEPaul,

I understand your precarious position regarding PV but the tree and underbrush encroachment went unabated for years and years, and it seems that only external criticism has caused them to address the issue.

You say that they are moving slowly, which would seem to be a form of passive resistance to the idea of tree and underbrush removal.  Especially from a club where membership approval is not a major concern, and certainly not required as at other clubs.

We've had this discussion about three years ago and I know that they have done some work, but the pace seems deliberate despite the fact that the mission seems crystal clear.

I've always liked the picture that hangs in the big room, next to the door exiting to the parking lot, as an example of Pine Valley as it was meant to be.

I'm with Geoff Childs on this one.   They should follow Oakmont's example, the results will be stunning.

[Dan Herrmann]

Since we're talking about PV, here's a quote from Ran on #14  (which I thought was a bit overgrown).  I think is comment  summarizes why trees are bad AND good very well:

14th hole, 185 yards; Since Crump originally roamed these grounds over 90 years ago, the amount of mature hardwood trees has multiplied dramatically to where each of the holes at Pine Valley is famously isolated from the rest of the course (and the busy world in general). While trees have encroached into the sandy areas around some of the fairways and greens, trees mercifully play next to no roll in the playing strategy of the holes. In the case of the 14th, the trees turn the hole from a visual terror where the green was once on an isolated finger of land into a hole of great beauty, especially in the autumn months. Whether this would please Crump or not seems debatable but there is no doubt that he would approve of the recent selective tree removal that has occured around this green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

danherrmann,

But, if you went back to the 13th hole or forward to the 15th hole, there was a time when trees had grown into the bunkers preventing one from taking a swing to extract their ball in the direction of the hole.

I'd call that impeding the lines of play, wouldn't you ?

Oakmont and Winged Foot have done remarkable jobs in the process of returning their courses to the way the original architects intended them to be and play, and other clubs should follow their example and undo all of the damage done over the last 50 years.

[TEPaul]

"Tom P -
Did George Crump leave anything to indicate that he intended for the course to have the holes separated by trees?"

GeorgeP:

Yes he did--at the moment to my knowledge they're in the form of two independently related "remembrances" (the key is that they were apparently asked for independently!) from his two closest friends during the entire creation of PVGC that were with him the most and knew him the best. Those "remembrances" were specifically asked for of those two close friends by PVGC after Crump died so the club could finish the course as they believed Crump wanted it to be and intended to finish it.

The idea of tree separation between the holes was apparently as important to him as the prescript that no more than two holes should route in one direction and that the holes should "box the compass", and that various holes should test various clubs and shots in very particular and specific places on the golf coure.

Crump's idea of separation of his holes with trees comes up in articles of that time all over the place too. But he didn't write much as far as I know and apparently never kept a diary of his ideas as far as I know. But if there is something like that in the archives I'm certain that it would show his feeling about the use of trees on that golf course. He designed and had it routed with plenty of width (routing) to accomodate good width of holes as well as a tree barrier outside that width along the sides on most all the hole (there are a very few exceptions).

When one looks at the very eary aerials of PVGC one notices some areas of tree clearing that don't seem to make much sense to the routing and design of the course. In almost all cases what those cleared areas were were areas Crump was trying out for holes or pieces of them before giving up on them. Crump had a personal modus operandi for designing holes and their features and placements that wasn't that uncommon at that time--he was a inveterate shot tester--he did it constantly and he also got Jim Govin--a very good player who worked for him there to shot test too. And to test shots even in areas he ended up not using of course he had to clear the trees away. If one looks at the periphery of the early PVGC in the aerial one notices that the raw land was completely chocked full of pine trees though!

Frankly, the property that Crump bought was originally known as Sumner (after its owner Sumner Ireland) and obviously Crump decided to name it Pine Valley. It doesn't really seem he'd name the course Pine Valley if he intended to remove all the pine trees from the site, does it?

Which brings up another course name relating to trees---Oakmont! Oakmont is and was the name of the nearby town but perhaps it was also the name given the land the course is now on.

Given the massive tree removal program that Oakmont G.C. has just gone through, which I think is wonderful, particularly given the original design intent of that course and the Fownes's, I hereby recommend that Oakmont rename their club--"Oaklessmont G.C. in Oakmont PA!"

However, again, I don't recommend that Pine Valley consider that same kind of massive and total tree removal program that Oaklessmont did because that's not what their designer wanted although apparently the Fownes did at Oakmont. So there's no need to ever consider renaming the great and famous Pine Valley G.C. "Pineless Valley G.C at Pine Valley NJ"!

[TEPaul]

Pat Mucci:

In my opinion when you say the things you just did about PVGC (the same things you said once before) it show me that a little knowledge can indeed be a very dangerous thing when it comes to a really significant golf course.

Some of your assumptions on why they may be taking their time with tree removal are either meaningless in my book or not of concern. They do things in their own way and always have and things have been pretty good for that. The point is the course did become tree encroached over the last few decades and they plan to reverse that to an extent--and I do hope to the extent that trees are removed inside that lines of all the course's architecture.

But if you (or Geoffrey) are in any way suggesting that PVGC should remove all or almost all the trees from their golf course as Oakmont just did--that to me indicates a scary disregard or misunderstanding of an historic and significant contribution to the world of and evolution of golf course design--Pine Valley G.C.

I'm no tree hugger either when it comes to golf or architecture but I consider myself to be or I try to be one who understands the distinctions in golf course architecture particularly when it comes to someone such as George Crump and PVGC.

BTW, I've seen that photo you refer to a hundred time and it does not in any way show a golf course sans trees as Oakmont once was and is again. You should read and consider a bit more carefully what I just said about Crump's intentions and why some of those areas were originally cleared and why they are no longer.

If you keep suggesting--even in jest that all the trees on PVGC should be removed I'll have to consider you to be a very poor student of classic courses and architecture--and a very dangerous one as well!

[GeoffreyC]

Tom

I was suggesting that at least 1000 trees should be removed to clean out areas intended for play and that includes ALL of the old bunkers well within the tree lines.  Anything not affecting the lines of play Crump INTENDED can be left alone.

[MargaretC]

TPaul:

"...remove all or almost all the trees from their golf course as Oakmont..."

I certainly didn't count them, but there are plenty of trees left at Oakmont.

[T_MacWood]

The course looks awesome....I'm looking forward to seeing more of the course over the weekend.

[TEPaul]

"Tom
I was suggesting that at least 1000 trees should be removed to clean out areas intended for play and that includes ALL of the old bunkers well within the tree lines.  Anything not affecting the lines of play Crump INTENDED can be left alone."

Geoffrey:

Even that might be conservative considering what we're probably both talking about and agreeing on. On #17 alone if they chose to restore the playbility of the alternate fairway and all that the green-end used to be in connection with that--were probably talking hundreds of trees on that holes right side alone. I think it's a completely commonsensical suggestion to make that all the architecture of PVGC should be reclaimed from existing trees. The clear logic of that could be best understood by the question;

"Or why was it designed to be there in the first place?"

MargaretC:

There're sure are trees left at Oakmont but it looks so much different and totally open, particularly #2-#8 compared to what it was not long ago--the interior of the course is now very open and the holes are almost all exposed to one another as they once were. This is precisely NOT the way PVGC was intended to be but it was the way Oakmont was originally intended to be.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The point is the course did become tree encroached over the last few decades and they plan to reverse that to an extent--and I do hope to the extent that trees are removed inside that lines of all the course's architecture.

But if you (or Geoffrey) are in any way suggesting that PVGC should remove all or almost all the trees from their golf course as Oakmont just did--that to me indicates a scary disregard or misunderstanding of an historic and significant contribution to the world of and evolution of golf course design--Pine Valley G.C.

BTW, I've seen that photo you refer to a hundred time and it does not in any way show a golf course sans trees as Oakmont once was and is again.

If you keep suggesting--even in jest that all the trees on PVGC should be removed I'll have to consider you to be a very poor student of classic courses and architecture--and a very dangerous one as well!

Where did I EVER advocate the removal of all the trees at Pine Valley ?     I NEVER DID.

You're the one who jumped to that wild extreme.

I referenced the picture in the big room next to the exit to the parking lot as an excellent goal in terms of restoration.

I advocated removing trees and underbrush from interfering with play from bunkers.   For eliminating any intrusion into the normal lines of play

How do you make the quantum leap to ascerting that I advocated the removal of all trees on the property  

I understand that you're at a disadvantage in discussing PV, and I understand that PV does things at their pace, but, even you would have to admit that their pace for tree and underbrush removal would seem to indicate reluctance to commit to the concept.  

No need for you to answer this.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The members at Oakmont deserve the credit for "getting it" today. They realize that they are custodians of something very special.

I don't know how to transpose a quote from one thread onto another, so I thought I'd pull this up for you.
These are Mark's words about his membership, and
"getting it".

[Forrest Richardson]

Yes. Oakmont looks great without "all those" trees.

But........

It's look is enhanced with all of the trees which remain. They create depth to vistas, hide the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and for interesting aesthetics to the landscape. In fact, the trees which remain —  many of them — help approximate the natural landscape of Western Pennsylvania.

And.......

The Fownes planted many trees in their day. To think Oakmont was ever purposefully devoid of trees is not a correct notion. Trees have always been a part of Oakmont. It was simply too long  aperiod from which thye great course had been thinned of overgrowth.

[TEPaul]

"I advocated removing trees and underbrush from interfering with play from bunkers.  For eliminating any intrusion into the normal lines of play."

That's all I've ever said. As for restoring the course tree-wise to the look of that photo you refer to, forget it. Have you seen the tree removal on #2, #5, #9, #14, #15? It certainly isn't all done and the tree removal program is ongoing so why don't you just relax?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I"m totally relaxed  

You're the one who got a little apoplectic.  

Forrest Richardson,

No one ever suggested denuding the property.

Hiding eyesores and providing other benefits is a valid function of trees.

But, Oakmont, Winged Foot, Ridgewood, Pine Valley and many other courses had tree planting and tree incursion to an excess, and a great many trees need/ed to be removed.

Ridgewood, at one time, might as well have domed the golf course, the trees were so invasive, bringing with them all of the negatives that Brad Klein enumerated earlier.

If you'll look at many aerials taken when a number of these courses opened or were in their early years, like Winged Foot, Baltusrol, etc., etc., you'll see that they were fairly wide open, not choked to narrow bowling alleys.

[Mark_Fine]

Played with an Oakmont member yesterday that was involved with the tree program and some of the restoration work.  He said every shot at the amateur is being recorded and additional changes will take place for the U.S Open.  More trees will be coming down.  FYI.
Mark

[A_Clay_Man]

Mark Studer, Thanx for the skinny! I watched again yesterday and was noticing that with the firming players were getting some decent action off some of the bunker ridges.  I was looking closely at the greenside ones and really wondered what Big mouth would look like with shorter grass. Probably bigger, huh? But, as someone keeps mentioning there's room in it(gca) for everyone, and having a scruffier look now and then can't be a bad thing.