Pine Valley Against the Winds of Change Towards the Strategic School

[Michael Chadwick]

Michael after giving this question more thought did you pose it strictly as pertains to an expert player relative to Pine Valley?

Hi Archie, thank you, Philip, and Jim for some insightful responses thus far. To answer your question, no, my prompt wasn't meant for an expert player, but an average yet perceptive player. As has been mentioned on this thread, the variance between what constitutes a penal, heroic, or strategic shot certainly differs between the player deciding which tier of a green to land on vs. the player hoping to just get a GIR. 

What I sense from the thread so far is that the better the player, the more strategic of a course PV is. Certainly makes sense, although isn't that applicable to just about every course?

The below quote from Jim I think is telling, on the behalf of a 15 handicapper and the scratch player:

I once had a debate with Pat Mucci on here about Pine Valley. Look him up in the 5+ year ago threads, he was the best. I took the position that there was not a hole at Pine Valley that you would intentionally aim down the side of one of the fairways to improve your approach angle (italics mine). My position was more based on the trouble you're in if you miss the fairway. While water is only a factor on a few shots, the hazards the course is built through are incredibly challenging so they might as well be thought of as dead ones if you're developing a plan to play the course. Pine Valley offers plenty of short grass width to allow people to make decisions and try shots that will help them shoot a lower score. The edges of the fairways do in fact offer advantages as the hole location moves around the greens...this is the case on almost every hole [...] Truthfully, if I had total control of my ball, every single hole offers a very broad spectrum of width and distance options to play the hole correctly.

What Jim implies is that there's a threshold--some players will approach PVGC trying to just hit every fairway and green (don't we all!) because of its penal challenge, while the best players will have more decisions to make as to which side to favor, optimal yardages, etc. What I tried evoking in my prompt, however, is that there are other highly ranked courses--both restored golden age and modern--that arguably grant a higher amount of strategic decisions to the average golfer. No matter how wayward you may be with driver, you still have to decide where to try to aim your ball on the fairway of TOC #1 or Ballyneal #13. TOC, Cypress, NGLA, Royal Melbourne, all may appear more strategic for the mid-handicapper, nevertheless PVGC hasn't been overtaken by any of those courses for the top spot in rankings.

And Philip's quote below offers a good explanation:   

No other course can match this sustained excellence - which is why it is number one. Put differently, it stands testimony to architectural excellence and golfing challenge, rather than being a hymn to strategy. Is this ironic in the era of strategy? I think it says simply that penal/strategic/heroic are useful but incomplete tools for assessing a golf course.

He's right. Confining a course, let alone an individual hole, to whether it's penal, heroic, or strategic is too restrictive. The best of courses infuse all three, and that's a telling feature for why PVGC retains its top rank. Again, I'm not arguing it shouldn't be number 1. But I'm intrigued that what's vogue in golf architecture could reasonably unseat PV for a different course, though it hasn't. 


Why I put "Winds of Change" in the title is that I sense the 10-20 handicapper experiencing Top 100 courses now, perhaps more than ever, feels empowered by the amount of decision making allotted to him or her during a round, rather than relying on the swing thought "just hit it straight, stupid." But I know with my own game, there are holes at PVGC that would probably force myself back to that kind of thinking. It's that fine line between penal vs. strategic that could give other clubs an opportunity to close the gap against PVGC as top course in the world, and the reason I find it slightly "ironic" is that Pine Valley continues to even widen its lead in GOLF's ranking metrics, despite "strategy"--for all classes of golfers--gaining much higher recognition in their game's IQ.


I'll part with this passage from MacKenzie in The Spirit of St. Andrews:
"Pine Valley is a striking example of where it would be so easy to give alternative routes which the weaker player might take for the loss of a stroke or proportion of a stroke, and at the same time make the course even more difficult and interesting for the good player. On some of the holes, such as the 18th, there are times when it is necessary for even the best player to play short, uninteresting golf shots when facing a strong wind.
The committee know our views, but they invariably reply, 'We don't want any golfers at Pine Valley except those bordering on scratch.' The time will inevitably come when the existing members will become older, and as they do so their length of drive will decrease, and why should they then be debarred from enjoying the course?"

[archie_struthers]

 




If I told you that local knowledge (dare I say comfort) is a huge advantage at Pine Valley, more so than almost any place I've watched players compete at. A couple of the Crump Cup winners would almost never be able to win a US Amateur somewhere else , yet year after year are competitive at this place. Is it strategic ?


Moreover PV survived the  "minimalist era without a fall from grace, so why not the "strategic" mindset Michael refers to. Again, under normal set up and conditions there are lots of holes where average players make par or the occasional birdie, they wouldn't do this a Winged Foot or Bethpage IMHO . So to even think it's not a strategic, penal golf club is folly. 


However it sure wasn't a minimalist job!

[Tom_Doak]

If I told you that local knowledge (dare I say comfort) is a huge advantage at Pine Valley, more so than almost any place I've watched players compete at. A couple of the Crump Cup winners would almost never be able to win a US Amateur somewhere else , yet year after year are competitive at this place. Is it strategic ?

Archie:


This is an excellent point.  Pine Valley is far from binary in the recovery shots you might have to hit when you miss a green.

[Tom_Doak]

Why I put "Winds of Change" in the title is that I sense the 10-20 handicapper experiencing Top 100 courses now, perhaps more than ever, feels empowered by the amount of decision making allotted to him or her during a round, rather than relying on the swing thought "just hit it straight, stupid." But I know with my own game, there are holes at PVGC that would probably force myself back to that kind of thinking. It's that fine line between penal vs. strategic that could give other clubs an opportunity to close the gap against PVGC as top course in the world, and the reason I find it slightly "ironic" is that Pine Valley continues to even widen its lead in GOLF's ranking metrics, despite "strategy"--for all classes of golfers--gaining much higher recognition in their game's IQ.

Michael:


You don't get to be #1 by being the same as everything else, just better.  You get to be #1 by being pointedly different than other courses.  The more everyone else builds playable, strategic courses, the more Pine Valley stands out.


(You could say the same thing about contoured greens and Augusta National, or playable bunkers and St. Andrews.)


I do think part of the reason Pine Valley stands out is that the native areas highlight the architecture so that people can identify it better.  If you took Winged Foot and turned all of the fairways into islands, it would look much more dramatic.  We are thinking of doing that for the new course down the beach from Tara Iti, actually, but it's a tough call to make for a resort course.  The advantage of being Pine Valley is that you don't have to answer to the lower classes of golfer.

[Scott Warren]

Michael,


Do the courses you listed have more strategic options than Pine Valley, or does the less severe penalty for missing the playing corridor just make them more apparent/attractive?


You can play for the edges at Pine Valley all day and gain some significant advantages over someone whose ball is in the middle of the fairway, but I think the primacy of loss aversion in most golfers’ decisionmaking means that many perhaps don’t see it. They know if they miss the (very wide) fairways they’ll likely lose their ball, so they decide that down the middle is their “only” option.


If you miss a shot at Royal Melbourne or NGLA or left on TOC you can knock your ball back in position and keep going. To an extent that’s great, but I do think the fact you can’t do so at Pine Valley is one of its assets, not a downside.

[Michael Chadwick]

Do the courses you listed have more strategic options than Pine Valley, or does the less severe penalty for missing the playing corridor just make them more apparent/attractive?

Scott, terrific question. I won't make a claim as to which top ranked course is most strategic, but I agree with you that the perceived severity of Pine Valley's hazards affects the player's decision making calculus. I can see that being a course's strength, scaring the player away from strategy because of the fear of finding a penal lie. 

If you miss a shot at Royal Melbourne or NGLA or left on TOC you can knock your ball back in position and keep going. To an extent that’s great, but I do think the fact you can’t do so at Pine Valley is one of its assets, not a downside.

That line just about distills my overriding question perfectly. Resistance to scoring has been abused enough as a concept on this site, yet at PVGC, you, and panelists, consider it an asset. I'm not arguing for either side. My point is that I could reasonably see a building consensus of people considering it a "downside" as penal continues to fall out of favor. The restoration of Oakland Hills South would imply the course reached a point where that level of tree choked challenge and loss of green size was considered too much of a downside. Pete Dye's designs have suffered some of the most rapid falls on the Top 100 list. PV remains immune. And from what I'm learning on this thread it's likely due to how well the course executes across all the three schools of architecture.

You don't get to be #1 by being the same as everything else, just better.  You get to be #1 by being pointedly different than other courses.  The more everyone else builds playable, strategic courses, the more Pine Valley stands out.I do think part of the reason Pine Valley stands out is that the native areas highlight the architecture so that people can identify it better.  If you took Winged Foot and turned all of the fairways into islands, it would look much more dramatic.

Thanks Tom. Archie's point about PV also deflecting away the 'minimalist' wave of sentiment rings true with what you say. Maybe because of the fact that a player can find it incredibly penal/heroic/strategic simultaneously speaks to its singular position.

[archie_struthers]

 


A quick chat with Sully yesterday brought up a point he made to Pat Mucci many moons ago about just finding the fairway being enough. Then we started thinking some more. I mentioned 1, 12 and 13 earlier. My advice would be hit it over the corner on #1 every time not worrying whether it ended up in the rough or bunker. Having wedge or nine iron to that green is so much better than sitting in the fairway 170-180 out. Contrarian maybe but surely less big numbers and more birdies.


On 8 and 12 I'm in favor of hitting it as far as you can as Tom Watson and particularly Jay Sigel agreed with. On #8 you might have a twenty yard uphill pitch or even a bunker shot. On 12 the further you hit it the better , opening up that skinny green dramatically.


On #13 you have to be careful not to hit it too far and get blocked out and the green is big enough that even a longer iron or rescue doesn't seem too perilous. Can't be left either as the fairway doesn't hold anything that's hot.


There are lots more little nuances that impact the player there, and once you get a comfort for them your advantage over other players is huge. A really good player named Bill Shean from Chicago almost committed Harikari before he figured the place out and once he did became a formidable foe there. Really nice guy and shot some great scores.


Then there is putting ....you could write a book on those greens.

[MCirba]

I think it is important to point out that the caddies at PV are almost miraculous in their ball-finding abilities.  Then the real strategic fun begins.   

[Tom_Doak]

There are lots more little nuances that impact the player there, and once you get a comfort for them your advantage over other players is huge. A really good player named Bill Shean from Chicago almost committed Harikari before he figured the place out and once he did became a formidable foe there. Really nice guy and shot some great scores.

Archie:


Bill Shean is another of my many mentors . . . met him when he hosted me at Butler National when I was 20.  One of the most unassuming great players I have ever met; doesn't look like he is doing anything spectacular, then it adds up to 70 or lower.

[Tim Martin]

I enjoy reading Archie’s take when it comes to Pine Valley with his wide breadth of experience as an Assistant Pro, player and caddie.

[Tim Martin]

Delete-Double Post-Sorry

[Mike_Trenham]

Glad to see Archie mention #13.  I am sure it’s different for longer hitters but I find it to be the narrowest wide fairway in golf.  It really calls for a long cut up the right side.  As far as I know aiming it up the middle on this hole is not an option, unless you absolutely kill it.

[Simon Barrington]

I don’t think it’s bold to suggest that, for the informed golfing public and, more specifically, panelists, the qualifications of what constitutes a great golf course have shifted over the past four decades. The penal school of architecture has ceded to the strategic, and a quick search for articles penned by Ran on GOLF yields the following endorsements of that sentiment: “The highest level of architecture occurs when the player is given a multitude of options in response to both design (width, short grass) and agronomy (surfaces that release the ball) [...] As you peruse the various lists in this issue, you’ll realize that the days of narrow fairways and flanking bunkers is not what energizes golfers anymore, to say nothing of raters. We want puzzles, conundrums and options. 'Thinking' your way around a course is gratifying and why we keep returning to the sport” (https://golf.com/travel/2020-2021-top-100-courses-united-states-ranking/); “Design themes from the Golden Age of architecture — width, strategy, playing angles, enjoyment, creativity stemming from 'bouncy-bounce' golf — manifest themselves across all of GOLF’s rankings, and this 2021 Top 100 in the World list reinforces these core themes. Fact: Courses that embrace short grass and give the player room to navigate based on their game strengths fared better than cramped courses choked with wrist-wrenching rough that necessitate looking for lost balls” (https://golf.com/travel/playability-influenced-top-100-courses-world-ranking/).


Nor is Ran a single voice crying out in the wilderness. The espousal of strategic golf, and the persuasiveness and tenacity from him, members of GCA, Mr. Doak, Hanse, Andy Johnson of the Fried Egg, etc. have helped shift attitudes back to the tenets you find in MacKenzie’s Spirit of St. Andrews. Look no further than the clubs that saw the most significant jumps in GOLF’s latest World rankings: Oakland Hills South, St. Patrick’s, Baltusrol Lower, Inverness, Ohoopee. Each course has either fully embraced–or restored–width, angles, and short grass to accentuate their own routings, green complexes, and the unique challenges players face to recover and score.


And yet, despite all that, Pine Valley has been the undisputed number 1 ranked golf course in America since rankings began. A course that, from my armchair navel gazing, utilizes penal, heroic, and strategic schools, but possibly in that order of descending priority. Though there is width on fairways, and the golfer may choose just how much of the doglegs to bite off, there nevertheless seems few holes at PVGC where you could sensibly draw drastically different tee ball directions that hold equal strategic value, as you might on the Lido’s Channel hole, for example.


So while views have changed, the king hasn’t been dethroned. I’d like to openly ask: Why not? ...

Bumping this old thread as just saw this clip on another place ("X" by Simon Haines, who has been posting some great colourised old images of ANGC recently too) and I had similar thoughts to Michael's original question.

https://x.com/Hainesy76/status/1773239240349892697?s=20

Strikes me that the understandable elevation of PV (and the global TV coverage of The Masters at ANGC) around this time led so many clubs around the world to try and create "separation" with very few executing the concept well, and many very poorly. Hence the over enthusiastic tree planting that has altered courses and the local natural environment of the same, not always for the better.

Both no doubt have been debated ad nauseum on here so simply sharing a charming little clip.

Cheers

[Tim_Weiman]

Glad to see Archie mention #13.  I am sure it’s different for longer hitters but I find it to be the narrowest wide fairway in golf.  It really calls for a long cut up the right side.  As far as I know aiming it up the middle on this hole is not an option, unless you absolutely kill it.

Great topic. Just want to second Mike Trenham’s point about #13 being the “narrowest wide fairway in golf”.


Both times I played Pine Valley I was playing at about a 12 HCP and both times I slightly pulled my tee shot leaving an approach shot with ball above my feet.


So it was decision time. Do I aim directly at the center of the green or, considering the score I could pile up missing the green to left with another pulled shot, do I aim to finish to the right of the green?


On both occasions I decided to play conservatively thinking I may not be that good a golfer but I can manage my way around the course. Sure enough both times I took three strokes to get down but didn’t feel too bad.


My point is simply #13 may be considered strategic as much as penal.

[Michael Felton]

Glad to see Archie mention #13.  I am sure it’s different for longer hitters but I find it to be the narrowest wide fairway in golf.  It really calls for a long cut up the right side.  As far as I know aiming it up the middle on this hole is not an option, unless you absolutely kill it.

Great topic. Just want to second Mike Trenham’s point about #13 being the “narrowest wide fairway in golf”.


Both times I played Pine Valley I was playing at about a 12 HCP and both times I slightly pulled my tee shot leaving an approach shot with ball above my feet.


So it was decision time. Do I aim directly at the center of the green or, considering the score I could pile up missing the green to left with another pulled shot, do I aim to finish to the right of the green?


On both occasions I decided to play conservatively thinking I may not be that good a golfer but I can manage my way around the course. Sure enough both times I took three strokes to get down but didn’t feel too bad.


My point is simply #13 may be considered strategic as much as penal.

I got to play 3 rounds in 2 days in 1998. The two holes I struggled with the most were 5 and 13. 5 I made no 3s on. 13 I made one par - that was holing a 25 foot putt with about 12 feet of break to it. I just could not get myself to hit it at the green with my second shot. It looks like the end of the world over there.

[mike_malone]

As a 12.8 index I find every shot I take at Pine Valley to grab my attention and allow choice except for the second shot on 2, all shots on 7, and the second shot on 18. These make me feel inadequate to pull off.
  Maybe I’m just accepting of disaster for bad mistakes because of my skill level but I feel when I’m there that the death nearby doesn’t affect my shots or enjoyment.

[Tim_Weiman]

As a 12.8 index I find every shot I take at Pine Valley to grab my attention and allow choice except for the second shot on 2, all shots on 7, and the second shot on 18. These make me feel inadequate to pull off.
  Maybe I’m just accepting of disaster for bad mistakes because of my skill level but I feel when I’m there that the death nearby doesn’t affect my shots or enjoyment.

Mike,


I agree there are actually quite a few decisions that have to be made at Pine Valley, but would add the tee shots at #3 and #14 as being pretty much just pick the right club and aim for the middle of the green.

[mike_malone]

Tim, 


  I agree on 14 where I nearly dunked it last time but I have found that the pin on 3 has even had me deciding how far onto the green to aim.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim, 


  I agree on 14 where I nearly dunked it last time but I have found that the pin on 3 has even had me deciding how far onto the green to aim.

Mike,


I agree regarding #3. Definitely different than #14.