[Michael Chadwick]

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?


The quality of the greens are one significant factor, according to Ran: “As much as the course’s fierce appearance, Pine Valley’s greens have kept it glued to the top of our rankings for decades” (https://golf.com/travel/top-100-courses-us-4-key-takeaways/). And Mr. Doak offers a brief explanation as well, partly due to the data collection of the rankings system: https://golf.com/news/tom-doak-explains-pine-valley-leads-top-100-ranking/.


But what I’d like to think is that if there ever was a moment for a club like Cypress, TOC, or NGLA to overtake the top spot, now would seemingly be it, yet it still hasn’t happened. That’s what’s prompting this topic.


To be clear: I’m not questioning Pine Valley’s greatness. What I’m suggesting, however, is that it’s ironic to be in an era defined by the renaissance of the strategic school of design, yet the course that holds top billing appears to flout that paradigm more than others. And it’s that irony I’m interested in hearing people actually familiar with the club either confirm or refute. My participation will be limited only to the prompt. I have not played it. Perhaps you think my premise is flawed, and that PVGC is far more strategic than I infer. I'm here to listen and be educated.   


Below is my own synopsis of the holes, per aerials, which of course fails to recognize nuance and undulation, but is a helpful guide for my own initial understanding of the course:


Hole 1: Par 4. Dogleg right. Forced carry off tee with sand on both sides of fairway. Green complex falls away long, right, left.
Hole 2: Par 4. Straight. Forced carry off tee with sand on both sides of fairway. Forced carry approach.
Hole 3: Par 3. Forced carry approach to island green surrounded by sand.
Hole 4: Par 4. Dogleg right. Forced carry off tee with sand on right side of fairway. Sand front left and front right on greenside approach, with a central hazard bisecting the fairway. Clubhouse in play for severe right miss.
Hole 5: Par 3. Forced carry approach over water and sand to green complex surrounded by sand, though with a front apron.
Hole 6: Par 4. Dogleg right. Forced carry off tee with sand on right side of fairway. Green surrounded by sand except for long left and front approach.
Hole 7: Par 5. Slight dogleg right. Forced carry off tee with trees lining fairway. Forced carry for second shot. Forced carry approach to green surrounded by sand but for long left.
Hole 8: Par 4. Straight. Forced carry off tee with sand on both sides of fairway. Two separate green pads surrounded by sand but for small tongues of turf for access.
Hole 9: Par 4. Straight. Forced carry off tee with sand on both sides of the fairway. Two separate green pads with sand primarily on the left and right sides.
Hole 10: Par 3. Forced carry approach to green nearly surrounded by sand.
Hole 11: Par 4. Slight dogleg right. Forced carry off tee with trees lining fairway. Approach over centerline bunker and right bunkers to a green with sand right, long, and short left.
Hole 12: Par 4. Straight with perpendicular left green. Forced carry off tee with sand left of fairway. Green set severely left of fairway with sand short, long, and left. 
Hole 13. Par 4. Dogleg left. Forced carry off tee with trees lining fairway. Forced carry approach with sand left and long/right.
Hole 14: Par 3. Forced carry approach over water and sand to island green surrounded by sand.
Hole 15: Par 5. Slightly serpentine. Forced water carry off tee with sand left and trees/water right of fairway. Second/third shot narrows with sand left and right on final approach to green.
Hole 16: Par 4. Straight/right. Forced carry off tee with trees lining fairway. Forced carry over rough on approach, with water on right, sand short left.
Hole 17: Par 4. Dogleg right. Forced carry off tee with sand right and trees left of fairway. Forced carry approach to a green all but surrounded with sand.
Hole 18: Par 4. Slight dogleg right. Forced carry off tee with sand right and trees left of fairway. Forced carry approach over road, water, and sand, to a green with sand front, left, right.


Happy holidays.

[Scott Warren]

I think when it comes to Pine Valley, a lot of people confuse “penal” with “severe”.

Pine Valley is an incredibly severe golf course, but in terms of the schools of design, it’s reasonably balanced between penal, strategic and heroic.

1, 6, 8, 12, 13 and 16 are all significantly strategic holes. And if you believe par threes can be strategic, then 3 and 5 as well.

There’s also a ton of variety and as you/Ran note — the greens are incredible.

[JMEvensky]

Thanks for starting this thread--a good PVGC discussion is always interesting.


I'll sit back and wait for GCA's resident scholars Archie and Sully to chime in.

[Philip Gawith]

Good topic Michael!


I think you are broadly right that if we mean by strategy that the golfing challenge is as much about the choices you are asked to make as about executing the shot, then PV is maybe not the exemplar for strategic golf.  Yes there are a few holes where a longer hitter and shorter hitter will approach things differently, but as a generalisation it does feel like a course where the need to "hit the shots/execute" is paramount.


Having said that, in thinking about your question the cliche that comes to mind is that "to define is to confine." I think it is a mistake to try and shoe-horn the course into representing a particular golfing paradigm because i don't think that is the claim that is made about the course. Rather, it is an unmatched collection of holes which combine memorability, drama, challenge and variety. 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.


Scott is right to distinguish between "penal" and "severe". PV is not a penal course in the sense of losing lots of golf balls. It is perfectly possibly to go round with the same ball. But it is undoubtedly a very demanding course that requires you to hit a lot of good shots, sometimes requiring power, sometimes requiring precision. And the penalties for failing are generally severe. But i should add that most of the rounds i have played at Pine Valley have been in the company of older, mid-handicap golfers. It does not devour them, but then they are not trying to keep scorecard.


As Tom notes in the article you link to, you are not required to carry more than 165 yards at any point. So the hole summary you provide with all the "forced carry" language off the tee likely gives the wrong impression of its severity. As a generalisation i would say that solid golfers (don't have to be especially long) who hit fairways and greens, and can putt, will find PV eminently playable.  It is the rest of us who struggle!

[Ronald Montesano]

This thread ends with two words: forced carry

[JESII]

No it doesn't. The objection to that term is too obtuse. Nobody is playing golf with a putter so we're just discussing what the minimum acceptable carry is. If 165 is too high for you, fair enough...but don't pretend it has to be zero.








Michael, I want to commend you for a very well thought out topic. It's quite interesting in this day and age of options and width and strategy that PV has retained it's position. While the bones are essentially untouched, they have embraced tree removal and management so there's that. Certainly does speak to what is on the ground!


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. 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.


For your question though, I'd be curious how you could possibly determine any course rates Penal, Heroic or Strategic in particular preferences. I believe every hole is different for each player depending exclusively on that players abilities. #17 at Sawgrass may be the poster child for the Penal School, but is it actually penal for a Tour player? Sure, they hit it in the water sometimes but it's really a strategic decision for them on what to take on. How about for the 36 handicapper? It's just simply not a playable hole for them in my opinion. Could be 90% heroic with no strategy and all the rest a flogging but...


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. I don't know the Channel Hole, but on #6, you could feasibly aim 60 or 70 yards apart if the pin moves from front rightish to back left. Same thing on #9 (left green) with back right pin and front left. 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.

[Tom_Doak]

A clarification:  that 165-yard max carry was the figure from the back tees in the 1980's when I first saw the course.  It's certainly more than that from some of the new tees added in the past 25 years.  Indeed, the necessity of all those new tees is another black mark against the course really being as great as everyone says.


But Pine Valley will remain number one, because the better players on the panels will insist on it, and berate anyone who objects as someone who shouldn't be on the panel at all.

[JESII]

Hmm...right. Why would a nominal carry distance matter to someone playing the back tees on one of the more difficult courses in the world? That's a non-factor. The front tees might be 100 yards.


You're actually suggesting there are courses better than Pine Valley but the panelists get bullied into not voting that way?  Come on Tom. There may well be courses better and Pine Valley hasn't been #1 in every ranking but a good player berating a lesser player for their opinion? If true (and this is your world), I would be even less interested in the lists.


In fact, the primary source of my disappointment with Pebble Beach is that it became #1 (in at least one of the polls) right around the time I played it in 1999 and it was nowhere near the golf course Pine Valley was in my opinion.

[Tom_Doak]

In fact, the primary source of my disappointment with Pebble Beach is that it became #1 (in at least one of the polls) right around the time I played it in 1999 and it was nowhere near the golf course Pine Valley was in my opinion.

Who had Pebble #1 and when?  That sounds like a commercially-driven result, which golf magazines are not immune to, especially nowadays.


Jim, most of the panels are echo chambers.  When they were smaller, it used to be a matter of inclusion:  you didn't get in position to vote against any of the Sacred Cows, unless you were someone who wouldn't.  As the panels have expanded, those who vote against the status quo are told they are "outliers" and given warnings that their votes need to conform more closely to the norm.

[Steve Lapper]

In fact, the primary source of my disappointment with Pebble Beach is that it became #1 (in at least one of the polls) right around the time I played it in 1999 and it was nowhere near the golf course Pine Valley was in my opinion.

Who had Pebble #1 and when?  That sounds like a commercially-driven result, which golf magazines are not immune to, especially nowadays.


Jim, most of the panels are echo chambers.  When they were smaller, it used to be a matter of inclusion:  you didn't get in position to vote against any of the Sacred Cows, unless you were someone who wouldn't.  As the panels have expanded, those who vote against the status quo are told they are "outliers" and given warnings that their votes need to conform more closely to the norm.

Golf Digest...Golf Digest...Golf Digest


And a dash of GolfWeek.


BTW. The primary reason Pine Valley continues to retain its perch is due to its having perhaps the single largest collection of great, or near great holes existent in golf. It doesn't rely on adjacent aesthetics and a good number of its holes are commonly thought to be well inside the best 3-5 of their kind throughout the world.


It is also surprising that no one has measured just how wide the fairways play. The approach shot is ALWAYS laden with terror, but the fairways (and lack of rough) are quite accommodating.

[Peter Pallotta]

Particularly good posts by Michael and (an unusually expansive) JES -- thanks.
Ran seems to have anticipated Michael's point with the last line of his PV write up in the Top 100 issue, ie "you have a course that hasn't budged from the No. 1 spot for decades, meaning that Pine Valley's only benchmark is itself"

[JESII]

http://www.golfcalifornia.com/pebble7.htm




Funny how the mind works...I went there in 1999 but the ranking was in 2001 after the US Am in 1999 and Open in 2000. My recollection is coming away disappointed as a result of expectations from the polls.


The article was written in April 2001.

[Tom_Doak]

http://www.golfcalifornia.com/pebble7.htm

Funny how the mind works...I went there in 1999 but the ranking was in 2001 after the US Am in 1999 and Open in 2000. My recollection is coming away disappointed as a result of expectations from the polls.

The article was written in April 2001.

Thanks, Jim.  Ah, yes, Tiger made Pebble #1, briefly.


The first time GOLF Magazine did its numeric ranking of courses, Muirfield and Pebble Beach finished dead even at #1 -- the editor broke the tie in favor of Muirfield, by nullifying his own vote which had Pebble Beach higher.  Royal County Down was #3, and Pine Valley #4.


But then, once everyone had seen those results and discussed them, Pine Valley took over the #1 spot in 1985, and has held it ever since, by a very wide margin the last time I saw the results.  That's why I think of it as being #1 in perpetuity.  I think GOLF DIGEST had Augusta #1 briefly, too . . . it's as if they are playing to different constituencies occasionally, or just orchestrating a change to make some news.

[JESII]

I'd like to believe it's not that manipulatable (is that a word?) but know I'm a dreamer.


Of those, I've played competitively at PB, RCD and PV and it's not close in my view.  Although, if the question were..."where would you like to play one round" it may well be RCD or Shinnecock as opposed to PV.  Haven't played Muirfield, TOC or CPC.

[Peter Pallotta]

....I've played competitively at PB, RCD and PV and it's not close in my view...

When you put it that way, I suddenly get the distinct impression that those 'better players on the golf digest panel' are right, and have had it right all along (except when results get particularly fudged, eg when Tiger wins at Pebble or someone's trying to curry favour with Augusta etc) -- 'architecture' only fully expresses its meaning and function in the actual playing...and if we're 'playing' the vast majority of us are playing 'competitively' even if we never enter a tournament, ie we're playing against par, or our previous best ever score, or our handicaps or our friends or to break 100 /90 /80 for the first time.

[JMEvensky]

Peter, pure speculation, but I'd bet few, if any, "better" player panelists have played any of those golf courses competitively. JS is referencing a US Am, a British Am, and a Crump Cup--"better" players aren't in those fields.

[Peter Pallotta]

You're probably right, Jeff, about the 'better players' -- but what I mean is, it seems that when JES is really trying to play his best (as opposed to balancing that with, say, having fun), PV stands out even more for him as the great course; and I think many golfers like me are similarly trying quite often to play our best -- even if our best is 18 or 10 or 5 (or only 2, in the case of better players) strokes higher than Jim's.

[JMEvensky]

You're probably right, Jeff, about the 'better players' -- but what I mean is, it seems that when JES is really trying to play his best (as opposed to balancing that with, say, having fun), PV stands out even more for him as the great course; and I think many golfers like me are similarly trying quite often to play our best -- even if our best is 18 or 10 or 5 (or only 2, in the case of better players) strokes higher than Jim's.

Which begs an interesting thread-jack question for Sully--which of the 3 courses changes most dramatically from daily play when set up for a competition?

[JESII]

I only played RCD a handful of times, and never in daily play. I'd bet weather is the primary variance there so could be a nightmare for everyone or just plain great. Like I suspect with most links, the greens stay within a modest range of speed and firmness.


Shinnecock similarly can get weather but 90% of the time it's just a spectacular property and course.


I know Pine Valley the best, but my experiences are primarily 10+ years ago. When they go from mild conditions for daily play to amped up for a tournament it's like professional hockey switching to the playoffs. I'm not a hockey guy but the difference is palpable. Everything matters and every shot is really cool and covers Michael's full spectrum of Penal > Heroic > Strategic.

[Michael Felton]

It's a long time since I played it, but my impression was not one of forced carries everywhere. There are bunkers to clear on just about every hole by the looks of things, but they're not very far carries in most instances. It's really only 15 that jumps out at me from memory. At the same time there is a lot of width out there. The two holes that I remember best for strategic merit are 6 and 16. Both holes the right side gives you the better angle for your approach, but also the longer more challenging carry from the tee. So you can play left off the tee and give yourself an easier tee shot, but a more challenging approach or you can play right and give yourself a better angle, but a much tougher tee shot. Isn't that pretty much the definition of strategic?


13 is another that springs to mind. Not so much on the tee shot, but the approach. I played it three times in two days in the late 90s and I tried to get myself to aim at the green, but the little voice in the back of my head said "nope" all three times. I made one par after holing a 25 foot putt with about 12 feet of break to it. The other two times I made 5. I have a feeling it might be the hardest par four I've played (I have played TOC too). My dad's friend who got us on there and is a member of the R&A disagreed with me on that point. He said he made a lot more 4s on 13 at PV than he did on 17 at TOC.



It also has short, mid and long par 3s and par 4s on it and all are exemplary examples of such. The only type of hole that it's really missing is a short gettable par 5, but the two par 5s are great holes and perhaps 13 can count as a reachable par 5...


I have no doubt it's the best course I've ever played. I haven't played a few others I've heard compared with it - Cypress Point, Sand Hills, Augusta. I have played Shinnecock, NGLA, Muirfield, TOC, which rank up there and they're just not on the same level. IMO at any rate.

[JESII]

How about the decisions on the second shot at #15 after a good drive?  Not a good drive that means you're thinking about getting there in two, a realistic good drive of say 275...so you're 300ish yards away and significantly uphill to a great and difficult green. for a single fairway, this could be the largest acreage available as potential intended spot to hit a ball with a layup in all of golf...

[Mark_Fine]

Of all the courses I have ever played, it is one of the courses where I could vividly remember every hole in fair detail after one round.  It definitely fits the Doak scale description of a 10 - if you missed one hole you missed something special.  I have always said it is not my favorite golf course but it is hard to not pick it as the best in the world. 

I play it about once a year and have so for a long time.  Some of the back tee carries are much longer (about 250 yards on 18 just to reach the fairway).   It is also one of the most demanding second shot golf courses in the world.  I am not enamored with some of the bunker work on 5 and 12 but that might be changing.  Time will tell.

We all know it was designed to be hard and for the better player.  But it incorporates all schools of design - penal, strategic and heroic. But the game has changed and until they added the new back tees (some are a little crazy like on #4) guys like Davis Love Jr. called it a very nice course but one that didn’t really require a driver 

[archie_struthers]

 


Sully held court for the "homies" like me who like me who feel Pine Valley is the best course they ever played. I've been there over a thousand times (including work of course) and every time I'm amazed at just what a brilliant design Mr Crump figured out here. Hole after hole with great interest and one of  the best sets of greens in the world.


I've only seen it cranked up a few times in my life and believe me it was such a treat. Imagine trying to hit it over the green on four cause you knew it was the best shot at par. Or standing on the 14th tee a thousand times and not being sure which way the wind was blowing down by the green. It remains a monument to great design, and if you go hole by hole it's pretty tough to beat.

[archie_struthers]

 


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


If not there is a myriad of strategies that can help a player get around this "penal" golf course in less strokes. As I detailed years ago even for the expert (say Crump Cup quality player) there are certain strategies on most of the holes that at the highest level give you an edge. The tee shot strategies on 1, 12, and 13 immediately spring to mind!


Throughout the round there are certain putting strategies that are counter productive to posting a good score relative to your handicap. One of the great beauties of PVGC is the ability of some seemingly average golfers to string together some pars and the occasional birdie .. it's great fun!

[JMEvensky]

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


If not there is a myriad of strategies that can help a player get around this "penal" golf course in less strokes. As I detailed years ago even for the expert (say Crump Cup quality player) there are certain strategies on most of the holes that at the highest level give you an edge. The tee shot strategies on 1, 12, and 13 immediately spring to mind!


Throughout the round there are certain putting strategies that are counter productive to posting a good score relative to your handicap. One of the great beauties of PVGC is the ability of some seemingly average golfers to string together some pars and the occasional birdie .. it's great fun!

If only The Lurker had been able to operate his cell phone...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()