Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Tom_Doak on March 03, 2006, 10:06:03 AM
-
What exactly is the point of rewriting such a list every year?
The only reasons for the ranking to ever change are:
1. Major renovation work, which should not be happening that much on the best golf courses in America (in my opinion);
2. Changes in conditioning, which a bunch of panelists should not be judging, if it should count for anything to begin with; or
3. Changes in the makeup of the panel, whose personal biases are reflected in the final list -- but why pay attention to that?
Or could it be #4 -- selling magazines?
Personally I wouldn't vote for either Pine Valley or Cypress Point as #1, but I'm surprised they were close enough to switch places, and I wonder why it happened. The only change I know of at either course is the lengthening at Pine Valley -- was that deemed to be a negative?
-
Tom,
You are contradicting yourself! You have often said, and I agree, there are probably 25 bullet proof "Top 10" courses, and after that there 200-300 "Next 75" courses.
PS I am paraphrasing from memory.
-
I'm not a rater so I don't profess to know the inner workings of the system.
However, I do question how some of these Top 25 courses can change. I know Brad has said many times that he does not allow raters to request access to the Top 50 Classic courses. I guess they are allowed to rate the course if they are brought there as a guest of a member. Is that the only way they are allowed to rate these courses Brad?
Tom,
I may be opening up a can of worms here, but what course would you vote number 1 if not PV or Cypess. NGLA?
Jason
-
Of course its selling magazines but behond that, its a method for identifying great architecture. The top 5 or top 10 are set and rarely change, but the lower 50 are excellent examples of architecture and how they change.
Tom:
I'm not sure what you are getting at. You have restored many classic courses bringing them back to life. Should they not be evaluated? Unlike a painting, golf courses change over time and need to be reevaluated.
-
You assume that the same magazine readers have been following the lists closely every year. For many, however, an annual list is "new" in so far as it is the first time a particular reader has viewed it. If you are a student of golf architecture, there is a strong probability that you have committed these lists to memory. But for the average member of the public, I think the situation is different.
-
The Golfweek lists may sell adds but it doesn't sell any subscriptions. You guys are out there in the real world just like me and surely you know this....Nobody except a few members of maybe 300 clubs gives a damn one way or the other. I would guess less than a thousand people nationwide even know what changes year to year.
-
John,
I have no numbers to back this up (If Brad chooses to, he probably has the data) but I would bet that the annual ratings issue is by far the biggest seller and most requested for ad space. As well, if it is like the SuperBowl, you could charge a healthy premium for ads in this issue.
I do not know what Tom's point is. Of course ratings are done to sell magazines and ads. If I ran a magazine, wouldn't my purpose be to sell them and get advertising in them? Why wouldn't I run features that the vast majority of my reading public are very interested in? Whether GCA aficionados like ratings or not, they are very popular and drive business.
For fun when you have a free ten minutes, get out a sheet of paper and write down the names of televised awards shows. I just came up with 38 (And I do not watch that much TV). I'll bet my wife could break fifty in ten minutes. People love ratings!
-
I don't think I have ever seen a Golfweek for sale as a single issue anywhere, of course the only newstands I frequent are in airports. I do see alot of Golfweeks laying around at almost every course I visit and the ratings issue may have a longer shelf life (if you call the thing on the back of the toilet a shelf) thus the ads would be more valuable.
-
The Golfweek lists may sell adds but it doesn't sell any subscriptions. You guys are out there in the real world just like me and surely you know this....Nobody except a few members of maybe 300 clubs gives a damn one way or the other. I would guess less than a thousand people nationwide even know what changes year to year.
Well then it is quite funny how much these magazine ratings get talked about if nobody cares.
I mean, I bet when GD had PV as #2 in 2000 people went absolutely balistic. Why?? People, as much as people dont like to admit it, they care. I know I like to see all the rankings, and whether for good or bad, it certainly brings up plenty of discussion here. So it would not really be true to say that only a few people care. Would you be angry if Victoria National was thrown off the list of the best 100 courses?? Dont tell me that wouldnt make you angry, or at least make you care about how bad some of these ratings are.
Remember, just because the ratings are bad does not mean people dont care.
-
Jordan,
I said 1000 people care...that is alot. Please note that I am not counting the 1500 raters, hundreds of writers and personel that work at the 1500 nominated clubs plus the people on this site that don't fit any of the above (all 20 of us) Do me a favor and just try to find someone outside the industry that knows the nuances of these lists...they don't exist.
If I am wrong, which I may be...Bandon may be the perfect place to find people who care. I would have liked to have seen what may have happened if Bandon Trails was rated higher than Bandon Dunes...I don't think even that would have made a difference on rounds played.
-
Jordan,
I said 1000 people care...that is alot. Please note that I am not counting the 1500 raters, hundreds of writers and personel that work at the 1500 nominated clubs plus the people on this site that don't fit any of the above (all 20 of us) Do me a favor and just try to find someone outside the industry that knows the nuances of these lists...they don't exist.
If I am wrong, which I may be...Bandon may be the perfect place to find people who care. I would have liked to have seen what may have happened if Bandon Trails was rated higher than Bandon Dunes...I don't think even that would have made a difference on rounds played.
I dont doubt that 1000 is a lot rather I am just saying that people do care. I could tell you many people who care. I can also tell you why. These ratings tell people where good places are to play that might not know otherwise. Maybe at Bandn it wouldnt matter, but that is completely different because they have three great courses and obviously there are gonna be more people wanting to play a course actually right on the ocean. If anything though, these ratings will send the message to people to play the Trails though.
I mean, I am not at all saying Bandon has bad courses, but think about how much different they would be if they were not rated in the top 100, at least as far as rounds played are concerned. That is how so many people find out about these courses, and these lists provide business for many courses. Like I said, they may be bad lists (that is up to the reader) but people most certainly care and these lists do provide business for courses.
-
Jordan,
Tom Doak just said it is done to sell magazines...that is the point I dispute. I just called up Barnes and Noble in Evansville, In...a store managed by a GCA member...and it doesn't carry Golfweek so a guy can go in and buy the ratings issue. I agree that the ratings are fun and valuable for people who love to play golf...I just don't buy that people subscribe to Golfweek because of them. If you don't subscribe, pleas tell me where to buy a single copy.
note: If 1000 people care enough to buy the single issue you are talking about $3950 in revenue....how much of that goes to Golfweek...meaningless. It is all about advertising..not sales.
-
note: If 1000 people care enough to buy the single issue you are talking about $3950 in revenue....how much of that goes to Golfweek...meaningless. It is all about advertising..not sales.
Yes, so tell me, do advertising fees have any correlation to sales?
-
Alright, my bad John, I just misunderstood.
BUT, how many courses would be a lot less known and have a lot less business if it wasnt for magazine ratings?? I would say quite a few to be honest, but I dont have a number.
Just something to think about though.
-
Tom,
Would a bi-annual listing work better, or a once every 5-10 years? I'm not sure.
I do know that classic courses fluctuate on the lists for some of the reasons you mentioned, but I also can say that I'm not surprised to see PV displaced from #1.
Despite ongoing efforts at removing foliage there, I believe there is growing awareness that it's not happening fast enough to restore abandoned lines of play, bunkering features, and visual vistas lost to time.
What's more, the efforts in recent years to clean up and formalize the formerly wild stretches of sandy terrain are frankly sad. For crying out loud they even ride a sandpro through them every day so that shrubs and other growth within the sandy areas have to be separated with enough space to drive large motorized equipment through.
Conversely, a course like Pasatiempo or Yale seem to have dramatically jumped higher based on sensitive restorations and/or maintenance efforts that bring out the best in the original design.
So, to answer your question, I think it's nice that there's still a forum that reflects the present care and feeding of the classic courses to a great extent.
I'm still waiting to see ANGC plunge based on the tree plantings and other ongoing Frankensteiniation of the place but the exclusivity there likely prevents many raters from actually playing it; thus, the static position.
-
JesII
Of course they do...Subscriptions. I don't think the ratings issues of Golfweek increase subscriptions enough to matter. I'm not talking about Golf Digest and the other mags you find on newstands...that is different. Do all the clubs who get Golfweek and the Supers who get SuperNews pay for their subscriptions...I don't think so. I wonder if those readers and all the people who see the issues at their courses are even "sales"...
I bet I am in a very small minority as one who subscribed to SuperNews...who paid for it that is..
-
Tom,
How about #5: to discover hidden gems. Granted there are fewer and fewer that people don't know about, but you're one of those (or THE one) who started that, with Crystal Downs, among others.
I believe some of the 'hidden' gems that GW has added to the list in recent years include Lehigh, Fenway, Lawsonia, Astoria, & Hollywood.
-
John,
I have assumed most every magazine generates its revenue from advertising, with subscription fee as a distant focus. True, Golfweek is rarely (if ever) found on news stands but the point is that the rankings issues have staying power for those that do read it and thus can value their advertising space higher.
And yes, the back of the toilet counts as a shelf in my house.
-
JESII,
Would you find it unethical for a sales staff of a magazine to ask a club if they want to advertise in a magazine where their course will appear on the cover. Or would it be unethical to tell a club that if they buy a full page spread they will be on the cover. I personally think both are just good business.
-
Jeez guys...can we at least pretend to stay on topic specific to Tom's original question? ::) :P
-
Mike,
I hope the guy that hosted you at Pine Valley isn't in trouble...Doak said this is to sell magazines. He was one of the pioneers of the craft and I am calling him out on his statement. Just tell me where I can go and buy the Golfweek issue if this is true.
-
Mike,
I hope the guy that hosted you at Pine Valley isn't in trouble...
John,
No worries there. I snuck on through that hole in the gate. ;)
Frankly John, it shouldn't matter to you if I played and/or rated Pine Valley or not. My comments could easily be coming from my assessment of things at this year's Crump Cup, where anyone and everyone can see the course for themselves.
-
John,
If they really wanted to sell magazines they would put PV as #7 or #8 in the country and have the #1 course be Oakmont or something (not saying Oakmont is bad). It would make everyone so shocked people all over would want to buy a copy for themselves. Also, put Pebble at #25 or so in the rankings and well...
now that would sell magazines!
-
Mike,
I hope the guy that hosted you at Pine Valley isn't in trouble...
John,
No worries there. I snuck on through that hole in the gate. ;)
Frankly John, it shouldn't matter to you if I played and/or rated Pine Valley or not. My comments could easily be coming from my assessment of things at this year's Crump Cup, where anyone and everyone can see the course for themselves.
Mike,
I thought you told me you played Pine Valley this last cycle and thus entered a rating....sorry if this is wrong. Why should it not matter to me if you played Pine Valley or not...you are my friend and I value your opinion. I also value what you wrote about Augusta but it would have meant more to me if you had actually played the course instead of just visiting the tournament as I have done. I always value the opinions of people who have played a truly great course more than those who have just visited.
-
To answer Tom Doaks original question...In todays society it is a bitch to wait two years to view the impact of your opinion let alone one. I think if I was in charge of a rating service I would have it in a database so every rater could instantaneously see how his valuable opinion changes the list. Once a year should be an absolute minimum. That is exactly why threads that go to the second page on this website die...we need immediate feedback.
-
John: I didn't say the purpose was to sell magazines. That's what Whitten always says it's about, and Brad sometimes agrees with him. I asked what the purpose was, I honestly don't know why a list of 50-year-old courses should have much movement. I was just pulling a "Jaka" by including my #4 reason, to get people talking.
Mike C: I have not been to Pine Valley for several years, so I don't know what management errors they have made to fall back to #2. However, I can hardly believe that they have "abandoned lines of play" as you suggested -- they're island fairways, and I would be surprised if any of the trees have grown into the islands. That may be a symptom of unchecked tree growth at other courses but I have a hard time visualizing it at Pine Valley.
-
Tom,
I fell for it..I'm not even allowed to discuss this stuff and here I go again. I hope I didn't hurt anyones fellings.
-
Mike C: I have not been to Pine Valley for several years, so I don't know what management errors they have made to fall back to #2. However, I can hardly believe that they have "abandoned lines of play" as you suggested -- they're island fairways, and I would be surprised if any of the trees have grown into the islands. That may be a symptom of unchecked tree growth at other courses but I have a hard time visualizing it at Pine Valley.
Tom,
Perhaps I should have said "original" lines of play.
Examples of what I'm referring to specifically occur on holes like 1, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17 where original bunkers now live under trees. In the case of 12, even flaunting with the bold play down the left is completely shut down by trees. The left side of the approach to 13 is similarly no longer a valid route as trees overhang and tree growth within the hazard diminishes the formerly spectacular sandy wasteland.
During the Crump Cup this year, myself and another GCA contributor (not who you might imagine) went exploring through formerly open areas like the alternate fairway on 17 and the left hillside on 15 where bunkers have trees growing from them and came to a clear determination that if this was any other course in the world it would lose points because of deviation from it's original greatness of design.
The story of the cleanup and formalization of the sandy waste areas is an even more concerning point that minimizes what was once one of the great unique features of the Valley.
On a personal note, I still think it's the best of the "classic courses", but needing a real restoration effort. However, I don't believe it's the #1 course in the country any longer and apparently others agree.
-
JESII,
Would you find it unethical for a sales staff of a magazine to ask a club if they want to advertise in a magazine where their course will appear on the cover. Or would it be unethical to tell a club that if they buy a full page spread they will be on the cover. I personally think both are just good business.
John,
Sorry for the delay.
I would agree with your last sentence if the word "good" were not in it. I'm not suggesting it's bad business, but the second scenario of yours would put the magazines reputation at risk and thus I could not call it good.
Mike C,
Do you feel those bunkers are actual intended "original lines of play"?
-
Mike C,
Do you feel those bunkers are actual intended "original lines of play"?
Sully,
Early aerials certainly show them as such, and there are some wonderful examples in the Geoff Shack book, "The Golden Age...".
-
Mike,
Lines of play??
I agree that the bunkers that have been swallowed up by trees will be much better presented if they are out of the woods, but I really doubt anyone thought they would be good places to play from.
Left of #2 - not getting on the green from them
Left of #4 - same
etc...
I would say the course would really regain its breath if the trees were opened up to the width of the outer edge of the bunker complexes, but I really disagree that any viable playability options have been eliminated in the current arrangement.
-
Sully,
Before I reply fully, I'd like to look at the aerials again, but what about attempting to carry the bunkers (that are now impossible due to forestation) such as the right side of #1, the left side of 12, or playing to the abandoned alternate fairway on 17. What about challenging the higher left side for the second shot on 15, or perhaps using that hill to bounce one in, or gain a better angle for the approach? Also, it seems to me that approaches from certain angles are now completely cut off by trees when no such impediments originally existed. While these might not have been ideal places to play from, they were still places you couldplay from, instead of trying to find it and punch it out.
-
Sounds like it is much more dictatorial. Is that right Mike?
-
Well Mike, I have not been to PV in about 5 years but I have a really hard time imagining trees blocking a carry over the right corner of #1 (perhaps a bit further right leaves one blocked out, but not if in the fairway), the left side of #12 (for starters only those trying to get on or right in front of the green should go that way, but even at 75 or 80 yards to the green and in the fairway you might not see it land but you'll be able to play it).
One spot you may have is #15. Last I rememberd, they did some clearing of the hill in the 100 yard and in range because trees did effect a shot from the left corner of the fairway (whch was an attractive spot). #13 is another if you hit a long drive up the right side (I don't recall the left as you mentioned) in which trees can block a shot.
My point about PV is that they give you so much fairway width that just because you catch a corner of it does not necessarily mean you deserve a clear, perfect shot to the green. Many trees can come out and it will improve the aesthetics, but I'm curious how much different your approach to any one hole would be.
-
Mr. Cirba:
Consider:
a) mathematically the differences between these courses at the top are TINY;
b) very few people get to see any of them, meaning a very small pool of votes.
I can only conclude that it was YOUR less than stellar rating that caused PV to slip to #2.
Please use your awesome power judiciously. And thanks for shifting the balance out west.
;D ;D
-
Mr. Cirba:
Consider:
a) mathematically the differences between these courses at the top are TINY;
b) very few people get to see any of them, meaning a very small pool of votes.
I can only conclude that it was YOUR less than stellar rating that caused PV to slip to #2.
Please use your awesome power judiciously. And thanks for shifting the balance out west.
;D ;D
Tom,
Actually, PV is probably much easier to get on than say, Cypress Point. I'm sure any rating of mine had nothing to do with the change in the top slot. In fact, I'm sure of it because I believe that Pine Valley is a slightly better course than CP.
-
Mike:
OK, OK. Fair enough. Judicious shirking - very wise.
But of course it doesn't truly explain away your power.... but I shall leave it alone.
;D
-
Mike:
OK, OK. Fair enough. Judicious shirking - very wise.
But of course it doesn't truly explain away your power.... but I shall leave it alone.
;D
Well, unfortunately I didn't have enough power to move my old favorite, Brigantine Golf Links (Van Kleek & Stiles 1927) to the top of the classic list.
Ahh...maybe next year. ;)
-
I just remebered that I read - I think in Links - that Fazio is talking to PV about more work, including more length
-
I think it is better to say that the lines of temptation were lost with tree encroachment. Sully is right that the bunkers, say on 12 for instance, that are in the tree line are not the right angle to take for that green. But that is the point. With the trees gone and the green visible from the tee, the line of instinct over the fairway bunker on the left may tempt players to try that direct line. The line of charm is on the outside of the dogleg (a feature on many Flynn dogleg holes as it is likely that Flynn built this hole according to the general intent of Crump along with Hugh and Alan Wilson). Strategic thought is limited by a lot of the encroaching trees. They might not be the way to go but their presence removes some of the mental side of the golf equation.
-
I think it is better to say that the lines of temptation were lost with tree encroachment. Sully is right that the bunkers, say on 12 for instance, that are in the tree line are not the right angle to take for that green. But that is the point. With the trees gone and the green visible from the tee, the line of instinct over the fairway bunker on the left may tempt players to try that direct line. The line of charm is on the outside of the dogleg (a feature on many Flynn dogleg holes as it is likely that Flynn built this hole according to the general intent of Crump along with Hugh and Alan Wilson). Strategic thought is limited by a lot of the encroaching trees. They might not be the way to go but their presence removes some of the mental side of the golf equation.
Wayne,
Thanks for coming to my rescue and stating it in a way that is much more clear and eloquent than my earlier attempts.
I believe the same situation occurs on #1, where the line of temptation down the right is really negated by the obvious tree growth that makes the only really obvious play something further left, away from the line of temptation.
#12 is presently a totally one-dimensional hole, particularly from the new back left tee. There is no reason anyone should ever attempt anything except driving it as far down the right side as they can.
-
Ease up guys..
This is exactly why these rankings are done..So everybody can either *itch, moan, give their I told you so's or start jumping for joy, about where some of these clubs (maybe your club)end/s up..
I don't care who wins or loses.
I care about the game and its architecture.
If it's last in the rankings and "GCA sound", that's enough for me.
I understand that some of the courses may get hurt by these rankings..But guess what, there's another coming next year!!
-
Anything that makes the average golfer think more about architecture is great with me. I can think of better ways than rankings, but if rankings sell, by all means bring on more rankings.
-
If the great classics are rated every year it gives the rater an excuse to try to gain access. Why bother playing anything in Philly other than PV and Merion? How many of these reports can a rater be expected to file in a year? They might as well play the best and quibble between the Doak 10's.
Does Golfweek need more ratings on Friars Head and SHGC and Maidstone or Garden City? Or would it help if they visited Westhampton or Huntington or South Fork? Imagine 9 Gil Hanse(MFA) holes and nobody has tried to weasle on there.
-
JES II,
For once, Mike Cirba is right.
The lines of play are impeded.
You can be in the left side of the fairway on # 17 and the trees near the green will impede ball fllight that would otherwise find the green. That's absurd and the result of years of benign neglect.
Likewise the bunkers that Mike mentioned that are overgrown with trees and scrub.
The photo hanging in the big room, next to the exit to the parking lot should be the road map to restoration at Pine Valley.
One of the things I'd especially like to see restored at PV are the skyline greens at # 2, # 9 and # 17.
Certainly, they could clear the lines of play and the intended hazard areas in one off season, if they wanted to.
I'm not so sure that they don't like things just the way they are, or, that they really don't understand the full concept of restoration as it pertains to this great golf course.
-
If the great classics are rated every year it gives the rater an excuse to try to gain access. Why bother playing anything in Philly other than PV and Merion? How many of these reports can a rater be expected to file in a year? They might as well play the best and quibble between the Doak 10's.
Does Golfweek need more ratings on Friars Head and SHGC and Maidstone or Garden City? Or would it help if they visited Westhampton or Huntington or South Fork? Imagine 9 Gil Hanse(MFA) holes and nobody has tried to weasle on there.
Hamilton,
You obviously have no idea at all how this works.
If someone spent their travel time doing what you suggest I'm quite confident that their time as a Golfweek rater would be very, very brief.
-
Jordan,
I said 1000 people care
Ok, that possibly covers the Melbourne metro area here in Victoria, Australia. Not many out of a population of 3.5m in the entire city, but still quite a few.
There'd have to be 50 cities in the US alone at a minimum where over 1,000 people care enough to buy a mag and at least talk about it among acquaintances or quote it. When I was growing up, no regular playing junior at my club didn't know the top 10 in the most recent GD list.
The American editions of GD with the world rankings sell the most copies by far here in Australia (in some years almost as many as the others all combined), and the advertising means nothing to us because nobody in my home town is going to take out life insurance with a company who's closest office is in LA or Honolulu, and isn't going to throw the clubs in the car and drive down to Hilton Head anytime soon.
-
JES II,
For once, Mike Cirba is right.
The lines of play are impeded.
Patrick,
Of course, I'm right. Other than my chipping technique (which is an admittedy self-delusional term), I don't think there has been too much we've disagreed about here over the years, Rees Jones notwithstanding. ;)
Oh...that's right...except for the changes to tighten Augusta National with trees and rough over the past several years.
On that one I'll simply refer you to your quote concerning Pine Valley just above. ;D
Also, regarding ANGC, I believe that the recent changes that even have such austere, conservative, speak no evil fellows such as Arnie and Jack decrying the changes ("The changes look like they are from someone who doesn't know how to play golf"), I'm hoping you'll soon see the light and switch to the correct side.
-
Mike Cirba,
You must have me confused with that cretin of architecture, TEPaul. I was ALWAYS opposed to the tree planting at ANGC due to the permanancy and maturation of the trees.
I could live with allowing the rough to be narrowed, provided it was returned to pre-tournament widths shortly after the big show left town.
With respect to Arnie and Jack, I find it interesting, that now that they can't benefit from the advances in Hi-tech, that they're now decrying them.
Didn't Arnie advocate that illegal driver a few years ago ?
Don't they both advocate laser range finders ?
It's a little late for them to be crying wolf.
-
Mike Cirba,
You must have me confused with that cretin of architecture, TEPaul. I was ALWAYS opposed to the tree planting at ANGC due to the permanancy and maturation of the trees.
I could live with allowing the rough to be narrowed, provided it was returned to pre-tournament widths shortly after the big show left town.
With respect to Arnie and Jack, I find it interesting, that now that they can't benefit from the advances in Hi-tech, that they're now decrying them.
Didn't Arnie advocate that illegal driver a few years ago ?
Don't they both advocate laser range finders ?
It's a little late for them to be crying wolf.
Patrick,
Then I guess I mistook your argument on the other thread. Sorry about that.
I recall us having a bit of a discussion last year after my first visit there. My lord, it's a wonderful course, but those new trees are horrendous.
I believe the only reason it hasn't dropped in recent course ranking polls is simply because so few actually get to play it. As the rest of the world is slowly seeing the light towards the benefits of tree management on classic courses, the folks at ANGC are moving rapidly in the wrong direction.
-
Mike Cirba,
I'm not so sure, in fact I'm positive, that those who rate golf courses don't do so in the sole confines and context of architecture.
I think only a few outsiders know about or understand the sub-categories used by the raters.
You were blown away by ANGC the first time you saw it.
Do you think a rater thinks solely about architecture when he plays there ?
That's not his "rating" job.
We tend to view courses in a much narrower context, the architectural context. Truth be told, when someone's playing golf their sole concern is usually about the features they encounter, not the ones they don't encounter, and their game and their score.
But, let's talk about the rough at Merion.
What do you think about it ? ;D
-
Mike Cirba,
But, let's talk about the rough at Merion.
What do you think about it ? ;D
Patrick,
Frankly, I think that MANY of the fairways at Merion need to be widened.
As tough and firm as those greens are as targets, I'd like to see the rough kept at a length where it affects spin, but I'm not a big fan of "chop it out" golf.
In particular, there are some places where widened fairways would just be dramatic, such as #5,where fairway should extend to almost the creek on the left and up AROUND the bunker on the right by the green.
I'd also love to see the whole areas between 18 & 14 be conjoined with fairway, just a wide sweeping swatch of green coming down the hill. How cool would that be?
They did do a great job recreating the upper, around the quarry fairway on 16 and the tree removal in places is just fantastic (see between 11 & 12).
Now, if they could just give those bunkers a haircut without them looking as out of place as Uncle Fester at the Playboy Mansion. ;)
-
I'm not sure if anyone ever answered Mr. Kavanaugh's question, but he has certainly repeated it enough.
I bought several issues of Golfweek at Golfer's Warehouse just south of Hartford, CT before I ever subscribed. In fact it is the first place I ever saw the magazine. I had never heard of it, so I wasn't really looking for it. It was right up at the registers. They often had both the current issue, plus a few back issues for sale.
I don't know where it can be purchased in Nashville because I've never looked since I'm now a subscriber.
-
With respect to Arnie and Jack, I find it interesting, that now that they can't benefit from the advances in Hi-tech, that they're now decrying them.
Patrick
I think Jack and Arnie's points of view are symptomatic of many very good players just over the competitive hill. This has orobably been the case for each successive generation of golfers since the Haskell.
Ciao
Sean
-
Sean,
I'd disagree.
I'm old enough to remember golfers who were advancing in age in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, etc., etc..
And, noone complained about the advances in technology because they were creeping changes, not quantum leaps.
-
Tom Doak comes close but slightly misses the mark on why we do it. Kavanaugh's question about sales is a good one. The answer is that course ratings have no influence on sales of the issue. We don't depend upon magazine rack sales. But they do draw increased attention from readers with that issue, there's more pass-through of the issue (from subscribers to non-subscriber readers) and more discussion of the issue by those in golf, which might translate into more subscribers down the road. Yes, advertising is important, and if a course wants to be associated with the issue, then the ad staff will accommodate them. My job is simply to deliver statistically valid rankings as an editorial product. We can thus debate the merits of this or that course ratings, but what we really try to offer is a reasonable process.
A major part of he reason we do ratings that no one here has focused upon is what's called "brand equity." We are aspiring to be a known commodity, we want people to value Golfweek, to talk about us, value what we write, to spend time with it and to feel like it's an imporant part of the golf landscape. Course ratings are a means to achieve that, and if they can be done credibly, with statistical rigor and impartially (my job is to deliver that) then we enhance the brand equity of Golfweek.
-
Brad Klein,
Despite what many people on this site think, many clubs pay close attention to the rankings and make efforts to secure their position in the rankings.
-
Patrick,
I happened to be at Pine Valley the week when Pebble Beach was named number 1 by Golf Digest a few years back.
Anyone who believes that course ratings are meaningless and that the major clubs don't care what people think are seriously deluding themselves.
-
Look, it doesn't take three pages on here to figure out why golf magazines do these Top 100 lists and such.
However, when it comes to what really is the #1 golf course and the greatest architecture in the World one does not need to wonder which course that is. It's the one that's been there for so long and will probably always deserve to be.
The real irony of that fact to me is I doubt there's a client anywhere in the world today who would actually have the guts to allow any architect to design and build the likes of Pine Valley.
Every one of them would rationalize it was too hard for the masses and because of that it would always be less than "ideal". My ass!
If someone wants the dubs and higher handicappers of this world to have fun playing golf tell them to go play the "bunny slope" golf courses of this world unless and until they feel capable of handling and enjoying the greatest golf course and architecture in the world.
-
"Anyone who believes that course ratings are meaningless and that the major clubs don't care what people think are seriously deluding themselves."
MikeC:
That may be so but I happened to be at Pine Valley not long after that when the people who run Pebble Beach came over here and played Pine Valley. It was not that hard to miss what they said as they walked off the course into the parking lot next to the clubhouse. What they said in a nutshell was;
"Jeeeesus Christ, there is no way on Earth or in Heaven or Hell our place is anywhere near this good!" ;)
You might think I'm kidding with this post. I assure you I am not.
-
"Anyone who believes that course ratings are meaningless and that the major clubs don't care what people think are seriously deluding themselves."
MikeC:
That may be so but I happened to be at Pine Valley not long after that when the people who run Pebble Beach came over here and played Pine Valley. It was not that hard to miss what they said as they walked off the course into the parking lot next to the clubhouse. What they said in a nutshell was;
"Jeeeesus Christ, there is no way on Earth or in Heaven or Hell our place is anywhere near this good!" ;)
You might think I'm kidding with this post. I assure you I am not.
Tom,
No, I definitely believe you and they should have said that because there is no way in heaven or hell that Pebble is a better golf course than Pine Valley. Cypress Point comes closer but I still believe PV has more great holes and less questionable ones.
-
for all you PV insiders: does one man there make decisions on how it is maintained; i.e., is he the sole judge whether trees are removed?
also: since it has "plummeted" to number 2, do you think that more trees will now be removed?
-
A New List of Best Classic Courses Every Year?
I had to speak up.
Certainly it is valid in that the top 10-20-30 never really change except for a minor shuffling which is reflective of changes in the architectural intent - I do feel that that is why Cypress passed PVGC this year. PVGC is clearly more consistently great in its architectual content (go blow Mr. Mucci, Jr. ;) see below ) hole to hole, however tree overgrowth and archtectural intent maintenance can change how a course gets placed. Golfweek specifically has a category reflecting preservation of original architectural features and design intent/integrity.
In the case of PVGC vs. CPC recently, CPC has done nearly everything possible and positive to show itself as the masterpiece that it surely is ( :) The sand could be darker).
PVGC has on the other hand, cleaned up, sand-pro-ed and let trees get out of hand wholesale on several holes most criminally notably on the sublime #12. These are all easily dealt with. PVGC shold look more like Crump/Colt/Alison/Thomas/Flynn/Tillinghast and Burbeck :) (just kidding) intended. Some original waste areas cannot possibly be restored/maintained as originally constructed, but the cleaning and sandpro treatment of other areas just makes an impossibly huge difference vs. 10 years ago.
Beyond 30 or 50 courses, the architecural greatness of the next 100-150 courses can be debated and recognition of a different group by a few every year often recognizes those on the cusp rather than listing a "near-miss list which is good for no one.
The courses that wind up #101 to 125 are likely not significantly more or less great than the 90-100 part of the list. THAT is pure mathematics. I'm sure that Tom Doak for one can attest to this from his experiences at Golf magazine.
*For Modern Courses the bullet-proof list is only 10-20 or 25 at most, not 35-60 or so (as with the Classical) because of multiple factors such as many new meritous courses appearing, lack of integrity of maintenance (both agronomically and architecturally) and regionality.
Regionality is a great example. When word spreads about a fine new course, most courses will go down over a few years in the rankings rahter than up as better statistical confidence from a wider variety of raters visiting over time is obtained. "Hand Picking" courses by one or a few or even ten individuals as to "What is worthy for consideration" short changes many a fine course. Good Golfweek Raters play the ho-hum as well as the cream I assure you.
And Dear Patrick
I'm not so sure, in fact I'm positive, that those who rate golf courses don't do so in the sole confines and context of architecture.
You're not in a position to make such a derogatory statement, especially the way you nitpick language and the like on here.
I think only a few outsiders know about or understand the sub-categories used by the raters.
If so, it's only because "the outsiders" either can't or choose not to r-e-a-d. It's in black-'n-white each year. It is extrordinarily well-defined and explained.
Do you think a rater thinks solely about architecture when he plays there (ANGC®) ?
That's not his "rating" job.
We tend to view courses in a much narrower context (on gca.com?), the architectural context. Truth be told, when someone's playing golf their sole concern is usually about the features they encounter, not the ones they don't encounter, and their game and their score.
Don't disparage what you can't speak to from direct experience. ;)
Seriously, I think that you are too dismissive of the how, the why and methodology of the GolfWeek crew. There is little ulterior motive and little unprofessionalism.
I won't speak to anyone else's panel.
You do no one a service, and you overlook your own considerable biases making many of the statements you do regading raters. Anyone not able to divorce their own personal experiences at a particular golf course from the architectural merit won't last long with Dr. Klein.
Oh yes,the disclaimer.
p.s. NGLA is the most architecturally interesting course in America to me, pre-1960 with PVGC and Shinnecock and CPC very close. My personal best of the best is NGLA, now even better without the trees.
My friends all knnow this already, so it's nothing new. I like the redheads.
-
The issue of whethe these rankings are important to the courses themselves, came clear to me when a local professional of an unnamed NW course that has held at least on major, laid out a case where green fees and logo item sales make up a significant portion of their revenue.
Players are interested in playing ranked golf courses. Whether magazines are also able to leverage ad sales matter little to me. What does seem important is that the industry continues to generate interest.
Let's be honest, Golf just isn't that healthy from a business perspective. Any chat we can get can't hurt!
Who was it that said, "I don't care what you write just spell my name right!"
-
Redanman,
Having been a golfweek rater, and intimately familiar with the subset of rating categories, I think I'm adequately qualified to speak to the issue, despite your protests to the contrary.
Some of the subsets don't address purely architectural issues, so I stand by my comments.
Your inference that there's global awareness of the subset categories is equally ridiculous.
And, I can speak from direct experience
Since the rating evaluation isn't confined to architectural categories, the rater can't think solely about architecture, by the very nature of his marching orders in performing his rating function.
I never mentioned or alluded to ulterior motives or unprofessionalism regarding raters, that's your misquided conclusion due to your inability to comprehend my post.
Instead of kissing Brad Klein's ass in public try boning up on your reading comprehension skills.
Would you also cite some of the statements you CLAIM I made regarding raters ?
And, would you list my personal biases regarding raters ?
Absent your ability to do so, try thinking before you type, if you can.
Hamlet, III, ii, 242
-
Bill Cosgrove:
Regarding sales of stuff, there are 200 courses on the two lists each year, so the list is not doing anything for golf merchandising as a whole -- just for the professionals of whichever clubs make it.
-
Why can't it just be said that PV and CPC are both #1. It seems to me (and I don't have access to the numbers) that the two courses are statistically tied. Based on 50-100 ratings (probably the range of samples for both courses) you haven't enough numerical significance to distinquish the difference in their averages.
JC
-
Jonathan,
For the same reason that states don't permit polygamy ;D
You've got to make a choice.
-
Tom,
This is good business for pro shops and clubs charging guest fees. It also makes for excellent real estate sales for those selling lots.
The courses that make the lists, benefit. Whether they are selling hats, tee times or real estate. The magazines are as Brad pointed out selling interesting content and advertising.
Tom, from your perspective, how do you feel the rest of the industry is doing and do the ranking lists help? Are your clients selling golf, real estate or something else?
My assumption, cynically, is that EVERYONE is selling something.
-
Pat, you were a GW rater? Goodness, I must be doing this longer than I can remember. Maybe you haven't read the critera lately. Which of the them is/are not strictly architectural? Am very curious. Just as a reminder, they are:
1. Ease and intimacy of the routing
2a. Integrity of original design (Classic)
2b. Quality of feature shaping (Modern)
3. Natural setting and overall land plan
4. Interest of greens and surrounding contours
5. Variety and memorability of par 3s
6. Variety and memorability of par 4s
7. Variety and memorability of par 5s
8. Basic quality of conditioning
9. Landscape and tree management
10. "Walk in the park" test
Please note that we publicize these criteria in each issue where we publish the ratings, and they are on the ballot for each course. So even if they are not exactly widely known they are public and available for scrutiny.
No doubt someone could argue that some of the terms lack specificity. There's only so much you can say in three or four words each (though each issue of Golfweek does have a fuller explanation of each standard). But their intent and meaning are pretty clear to any reasonable person. We have no choice but to let people make their own judgments, but we ask them to think along the lines of these standards of judgment.
-
With respect to Arnie and Jack, I find it interesting, that now that they can't benefit from the advances in Hi-tech, that they're now decrying them.
Patrick
I think Jack and Arnie's points of view are symptomatic of many very good players just over the competitive hill. This has orobably been the case for each successive generation of golfers since the Haskell.
Ciao
Sean
With all due respect to two of the game's greats, I think Jack and Arnie are a bit more than "just over the competitive hill". I think you do them a disservice by looking at their words in that way. If technology had not advanced since 1962 Jack and Arnie would still not be competitive, and if no courses had been lengthened since then they would still find those courses to be too long.
Tiger said something about the distance the ball is going and diminution of skill recently, people suggested it is because he doesn't like that others were able to use technology to catch up to him.
It seems that no matter who says something some ulterior motive for their statement can be claimed. If a long hitter says its bad, its because he doesn't want the techology to bring others closer to him. If a short hitter says its bad, it is because he can't take advantage of the technology.
Who is allowed to speak up without someone claiming they've got a reason beyond believing recent changes have been bad for the game?
-
With respect to Arnie and Jack, I find it interesting, that now that they can't benefit from the advances in Hi-tech, that they're now decrying them.
Patrick
I think Jack and Arnie's points of view are symptomatic of many very good players just over the competitive hill. This has orobably been the case for each successive generation of golfers since the Haskell.
Ciao
Sean
With all due respect to two of the game's greats, I think Jack and Arnie are a bit more than "just over the competitive hill". I think you do them a disservice by looking at their words in that way. If technology had not advanced since 1962 Jack and Arnie would still not be competitive, and if no courses had been lengthened since then they would still find those courses to be too long.
Tiger said something about the distance the ball is going and diminution of skill recently, people suggested it is because he doesn't like that others were able to use technology to catch up to him.
It seems that no matter who says something some ulterior motive for their statement can be claimed. If a long hitter says its bad, its because he doesn't want the techology to bring others closer to him. If a short hitter says its bad, it is because he can't take advantage of the technology.
Who is allowed to speak up without someone claiming they've got a reason beyond believing recent changes have been bad for the game?
Doug
I think very few people have an ulterior motive unless they are selling the equipment. People are just expressing opinions. Players just call it as they see it. There is no right or wrong.
I am in no way suggesting that Jack or Arnie believes he could still compete if the equipment were pre whatever date. No, they are both well past leaderboard competitive. However, there is no doubt in my mind that Jack could hit the tour today and make a living as a journeyman pro. I would bet on him keeping his card. I don't think I am doing Jack or Arnie any disservice. As I say, they are speaking their minds and they have earned enough respect to be heard.
Ciao
Sean
-
When did the rankings jump the shark...sorry guys, it's over when Mucci can't even remember if he was a rater or not..
-
John
Give Pat a break. I also can't remmber if I was ever a rater, even though I'm sure I've been asked (like most of the western world). It's got nothing to do with sharks or jiumping, just maturity.
-
Patrick
Hmmm, seems someone called your bluff.
And I never suck up to a soul. It turns out to be a love/hate characteristic for my friends.
Walk in the park is the only "Intangible", if you will, but it's actually about the joy of actually walking the land and chasing the pill. Pretty much related to the combination of the other nine, sort of Gestaltist, if you please.
-
John
Give Pat a break. I also can't remmber if I was ever a rater, even though I'm sure I've been asked (like most of the western world). It's got nothing to do with sharks or jiumping, just maturity.
Rich,
It's not just Mucci...Just look at the lack of discussion over the last list...it is deafening. I think I know when it jumped but I havn't played the course and hate to possibly offend a couple of good friends.
-
It's not just Mucci...Just look at the lack of discussion over the last list...it is deafening. I think I know when it jumped but I havn't played the course and hate to possibly offend a couple of good friends.
No, not even golfclubatlas.com has jumped the shark (as I was contemplating a few weeks ago), but the concepts of critical mass are getting ever closer approached in these cases. There's an endpoint to many of these discussions if not one is afraid to slay sacred cows.
However, I think I can put myself past being called a homer in saying that the Modern top 100 is in a way the most daring of all the lists of courses and that I am personally a little surprized how little discussion of that there is
However, most of the added courses this year were quite honestly favorably discusssed on this site over the last 12-18 months. Yes, even the love-to-hate (by those with an axe to grind) Trump National Bedminster. (Remember that I am a "Fazio-basher".)
O/T
It in principle reminds me of the polarity of opinions seen in the simultaneously most loved and most hated restaurant (now out-of-business fifteen years) in Chicago: simply
"The Bakery".
It quite frankly was so hated because it was so loved by others. It was merely one of the very best meals of fine cuisine in town at an extrordinary value, run by two Hungarian Brothers and one of their wives that charged no corkage fee for wine (or maybe $3-5). Their fine food begged for great wines. If you did not BYO they had things like "Bad" vintage Chateau Margeaux, Beycheville or similar value wines for little over their own cost.
Not the very best in town, but well worth a frequent visit, and for some the absolute best, depending on taste. Maybe they took no real chances, but they did it up right.
-
Mike, Wayne and Patrick,
I agree that the course would be more visibly pleasing if a significant tree program widened the playing corridors on most or all of the holes. I'm not arguing original intent, but several holes would clearly improve visually with a bit more space, but the argument that a drive way off into the left corner of #17 fairway leaves an impeded path to the green is really weak in my opinion Pat. In what circumstance would a player actually try to hit the ball there? To what advantage? Would that area be more palatable to you if it were rough?
Mike, you can certainly come up with better opportunities to clear a few trees than to restore the old right fairway on #17. #12 would be visually enhanced if there were no trees between it and #15, but that is due completely to the terrain going down that hill. It will not entice anyone to try and carry 300 yards of sandy scrublands to get on the green. The options on that hole still exist as they always have. The option decisions on the 12th tee are distance based and not direction based. How far do I want in to the green? Where is the pin so that I can hit it the proper distance to attain the optimal view of that pin? These are the type of questions you ask yourself on that tee, not "What's the yardage to the front apron"? Or, "which side of the fairway is better, right or left"?
-
When did the rankings jump the shark...sorry guys, it's over when Mucci can't even remember if he was a rater or not..
JakaB,
How on earth do you reach this conclusion ?
I clearly stated that I was a rater.
Perhaps you have me confused with Brad Klein.
Brad Klein,
How quickly you forget. ;D
I'd include "natural setting" as non-architectural, and, I'd throw landscaping in as well
Bill Vostinak,
Who called my bluff ?
Or is this just another one of you baseless claims ?
Rich Goodale,
Thanks for coming to my defense, even if JakaB was confused with respect to who, said what.
My selective memory remains as sharp as ever.[/color]
-
Mike, Wayne and Patrick,
...the argument that a drive way off into the left corner of #17 fairway leaves an impeded path to the green is really weak in my opinion Pat.
Surely you jest.[/color]
In what circumstance would a player actually try to hit the ball there?
The "player" tries to hit the best shot that he can based on his "game". However, it's a far cry from intent to execution.
Someone who draws or hooks the ball will end up to the left due to the nature of the right side of the fairway. In addition, anyone who pulls the ball ends up there.
The area is maintained as fairway because it was designed as such with respect to angles of attack. As a prefered location from which to hit one's approach shot, it's maintained as a fairway[/color]
To what advantage?
Would that area be more palatable to you if it were rough?
Please, rethink these questions in the context of my replies above.[/color]
Mike, you can certainly come up with better opportunities to clear a few trees than to restore the old right fairway on #17.
With funds not being an issue, why wouldn't you restore the right side fairway ?[/color]
#12 would be visually enhanced if there were no trees between it and #15, but that is due completely to the terrain going down that hill.
I don't believe that's what Mike's suggesting.
He wants the trees on the left of # 12 cleared so that you can see the green from the tee and that those who choose to attempt to drive straight at the green, who miss, have a reasonable opportunity to recover. Thus those trees need to come out.
With respect to # 15 there are a myriad number of bunkers on the incline left of the fairway starting at about 60-100 yards from the green, and that they should be exposed.
The elevation change tends to hide # 15 from # 12 and # 12 from # 15. Sort of like, # 18 from # 8.[/color]
It will not entice anyone to try and carry 300 yards of sandy scrublands to get on the green.
That's not true.
In addition, the golfer who pulls or hooks his ball in now in a forest as opposed to the intended sandy waste area[/color]
The options on that hole still exist as they always have.
The option decisions on the 12th tee are distance based and not direction based. How far do I want in to the green? Where is the pin so that I can hit it the proper distance to attain the optimal view of that pin? These are the type of questions you ask yourself on that tee, not "What's the yardage to the front apron"? Or, "which side of the fairway is better, right or left"?
That may be your thought process but, it doesn't represent the totality of thought processes for golfers who stand on the tee.
I'd rather have a greenside bunker shot into that green versus many alternatives.
Your resistance to restoration at PV may be based on your inability to stand back and view PV at arms length.
You may have emotional, political or social reasons, concscious and sub-conscious that prevent you from being 100 % objective.
There's been an element of socialized in-breeding that has resulted in benign neglect over the years, and you're not alone in your misguided defense. ;D[/color]
-
Patrick,
To be clear, I have no connection with Pine Valley.
Please re-read my posts though this thread, I clearly stated that the course would significantly benefit from a tree clearing program to the outer edges of all fairway bunkers. I'm not arguing that.
Is it safe to assume from this last post of yours that players should be able to drive it all over the place and still have a clear, unimpeeded shot to the green? Should players not have to recover with something pretty impressive if they miss the "best" position by 15, 20 or 25 yards on a short par 4 that usually requires no more than a long iron?
-
Pat, you must have been on board before we had standards.
I don't know why "natural setting" and "landscaping" aren't architecturally related. They have everything to do with landforms, structure and context. One (setting) sets the framework for design, the other (landscaping) is a partial response
-
Pat, you must have been on board before we had standards.
Absolutely.
I'm also lucky that I was accepted at college and a golf club before they had standards as well. Timing is everything. [/color]
I don't know why "natural setting" and "landscaping" aren't architecturally related. They have everything to do with landforms, structure and context. One (setting) sets the framework for design, the other (landscaping) is a partial response.
As we sit at our desks we could agree on that, but, a golfer in the field finds it hard to filter, seperate or connect tangential and/or collateral issues from the architecture issues.[/color]
-
Barney, I think the lack of discussion of the GW rankings is a function of the link to SuperNews being practically fricking impossible to read. I gave up after trying to read a few paragraphs. I'm just going to wait for the hard copy unless it's on the GW site, which I'll check now. But I think that's what it is -- you can't discuss what you can't read.
Just checked GW -- the list on GW is still the old list.
Shivas,
On the SuperNews site you simply have to click on the page you want to read...it then clearly shows up in a separate window. I think we all know that and the lack of discussion is simply a lack of interest.
I propose a test...Simply come up with an interesting topic and I will post it on Bombsquad or Golfwrx...I promise you that no matter how interesting a topic you propose no ordinary golfer will care...it's over my friend. Joni don't love Chachi no more..
-
To be clear, I have no connection with Pine Valley.
Is it fair to say that you don't know any members of PV, or have friends who are members, or who have friends who have friends who are members ?
Are you friendly with TEPaul ? If you don't want to embarrass yourself in public, IM me with the answer to the last question.[/color]
Is it safe to assume from this last post of yours that players should be able to drive it all over the place and still have a clear, unimpeeded shot to the green?
That's an exageration, or extreme example.
It's clear that the architectural intent on the 12th hole is to lure the golfer into attempting a heroic shot.
Driving at the green and missing it by 10 yards, left or short, can't be defined as "driving it all over the place"
You should look at the aerials, circa 1925 and 1938 before dismissing the concept of restoration and eliminating the trees and scrub that's been allowed to destroy Crump's PV.[/color]
Should players not have to recover with something pretty impressive if they miss the "best" position by 15, 20 or 25 yards on a short par 4 that usually requires no more than a long iron?
Again, a review of the 1925 and 1938 aerials would answer that question for you.
You're only viewing # 12 in the narrow context of your experience with the hole.[/color]
-
Oops......... I didn't know that either, I just gave up trying to read it.
Why is it posted on Supernews before it hits the newstands in Golfweek?
-
Patrick,
In your posts #81 and #87 you imply that I mask my opinions of PV so as not to offend any of my friends who may be members there. This implication unfortunately identifies your view on such things. It's either exuberant praise or harsh criticism from you and I disagree with both forms of expression. I would have no problem speaking to any number of their members about my thoughts, but it's not my place nor yours. For you to say they have "destroyed Crump's Pine Valley" would bother me more if it were not the 500th time you've said it in the last year and a half, call me immune. Take a more rational approach to voicing your opinions and perhaps you will be able to view those of others in a more sincere light.
Now, as to the golf course, do you really think Crump thought anyone was going to drive the 12th green? Do you really think he intended for recovery from sand to be a big part of ones game down there considering the type of hazards he created? When did they start not-maintaining the bunkers? Was it at inception? In my above post when I referrenced missing a target with a long iron off the tee by 15 - 25 yards I was referring to #17, not #12. It was a reply to your issue with the obstructed view from the left corner and the fact they the hole has changed.
Please remember my earlier posts Pat, some tree work will absolutely help the aesthetics, perhaps even the turf conditions (I'm no expert though) but it will have very little effect on the golf shots you'll play.
-
SuperNews scooped Golfweek! We'll rectify that very shortly and the GW list will be updated soon, now.
-
Patrick,
In your posts #81 and #87 you imply that I mask my opinions of PV so as not to offend any of my friends who may be members there. This implication unfortunately identifies your view on such things. It's either exuberant praise or harsh criticism from you and I disagree with both forms of expression. I would have no problem speaking to any number of their members about my thoughts, but it's not my place nor yours. For you to say they have "destroyed Crump's Pine Valley" would bother me more if it were not the 500th time you've said it in the last year and a half, call me immune. Take a more rational approach to voicing your opinions and perhaps you will be able to view those of others in a more sincere light.
I merely asked a question, YOU drew the conclusions, erroneous as they are.
Now, as to the golf course, do you really think Crump thought anyone was going to drive the 12th green?
YES
Do you really think he intended for recovery from sand to be a big part of ones game down there considering the type of hazards he created?
Yes.
Did you review the 1925 Aerials ?
If you didn't then there's no need to proceed with the discussion since you'll not have an understanding of the configuration of the hole, the green and its hazards as it was originally designed.
When did they start not-maintaining the bunkers?
What you, and perhaps others fail to understand is that there's a huge difference between scheduled maintainance practices and abandoning maintainance practices.
When you can differentiate the two, perhaps you'll understand the context of my posts.
Was it at inception?
No.
In my above post when I referrenced missing a target with a long iron off the tee by 15 - 25 yards I was referring to #17, not #12.
The tee at # 17 is aligned such that a tee shot favors the left side, and a draw or hook will certainly find that side of the fairway, aided by the cant of the land on the right side of the fairway.
A review of pages 228 and 229 in Finegan's book on Pine Valley will provide you with the confirming view from the tee.
In addition, the picture in the lower right quadrant of page 229 reflects the intrusion of pine limbs into the playing corridors when one is approaching the green, and, that picture appears to be taken from the center of the fairway.
Imagine the view from the far left side of the fairway.
Much of the green is blocked by the trees for approaching shots.
In the event that you don't have a copy of the book, or if you don't have a copy of Geoff Shackelford's book, go to Google Earth, and you'll see, albeit from a difficult angle, the problem golfers in the left side of the fairway face.
It's incontravertible, approaches from the left side of the fairway are impeded by the intrusion of pine trees.
The aerial, circa 1925 reflects the approach as totally unobstructed.
It was a reply to your issue with the obstructed view from the left corner and the fact they the hole has changed.
Please remember my earlier posts Pat, some tree work will absolutely help the aesthetics, perhaps even the turf conditions (I'm no expert though) but it will have very little effect on the golf shots you'll play.
That's not true.
Please, please look at the aerials circa 1925 and 1938, you'll be enlightened.
-
Sully,
I understand your points but rather than get into a more detailed discussion I'd refer you to the 1925 aerials of Pine Valley on pages 53 & 66 in Geoff Shackelford's, "The Golden Age of Golf Design".
I think it's pretty clear that many holes today play quite a bit differently than they existed at that time, which coincidentally is around the time the design was "finalized" through Alison, the Wilson's, Flynn, and others completion of the course in the way they believed Crump would have wanted it.
In the case of 12, you'll see that it was cleared of trees all the way to the ridgeline. Look how differently holes like 1, 6, 13, or 17 not only looked but how they would have played. I think you'll find the pics fascinating if you haven't seen them before. I know I was quite surprised.
-
What exactly is the point of rewriting such a list every year?
The only reasons for the ranking to ever change are:
1. Major renovation work, which should not be happening that much on the best golf courses in America (in my opinion);
2. Changes in conditioning, which a bunch of panelists should not be judging, if it should count for anything to begin with; or
3. Changes in the makeup of the panel, whose personal biases are reflected in the final list -- but why pay attention to that?
Or could it be #4 -- selling magazines?
Personally I wouldn't vote for either Pine Valley or Cypress Point as #1, but I'm surprised they were close enough to switch places, and I wonder why it happened. The only change I know of at either course is the lengthening at Pine Valley -- was that deemed to be a negative?
With all due respect, Mr. Doak, #2 above does matter to the vast majority of golfers the world over, so if a great course decides to start spending less money on conditioning than it has in the past, and that very conditioning is one of the things that has led to its high ranking on various lists, then it's only natural to expect that said ranking will be lowered.
Dang, that was a LONG sentence.
-
Mike and Pat,
I looked at Shackleford's book last night. What was interesting to me about those photos and this conversation is two-fold; All of the areas we are discussing as being over-treed today were planted in 1925, and 1925 is something like 7 years after Crump died.
With the exception of the right fairway on #17 (which looks cool but does not necessarily improve the hole, at least conceptually to me) which shots do you think you'd play differently if the course looked exactly like that as opposed to today?
-
Mike and Pat,
I looked at Shackleford's book last night. What was interesting to me about those photos and this conversation is two-fold; All of the areas we are discussing as being over-treed today were planted in 1925, and 1925 is something like 7 years after Crump died.
Where did you get this information from.
Those areas were NEVER planted.
The 1938 photos would seem to confirm that.[/color]
With the exception of the right fairway on #17 (which looks cool but does not necessarily improve the hole, at least conceptually to me) which shots do you think you'd play differently if the course looked exactly like that as opposed to today?
Almost every shot from a bunker.
I wouldn't have to play laterally around trees and scrub, I could play toward the hole.
I'd play my drives closer to the left side of the fairway on
# 12 and closer to the right side of # 17.[/color]
-
Mike and Pat,
I looked at Shackleford's book last night. What was interesting to me about those photos and this conversation is two-fold; All of the areas we are discussing as being over-treed today were planted in 1925, and 1925 is something like 7 years after Crump died.
Where did you get this information from.
Those areas were NEVER planted.
The 1938 photos would seem to confirm that.[/color]
Pat - Look at the pictures Mike referrenced in Geoff Shacklefords book. I believe pages 53 and 66 showed very clear and interesting overhead views. There are small trees growing in almost all of the areas we have discussed. What I think you ought to find interesting is that 7 years after Crump died there was massive tree plantings. How do you feel about that? Tom Paul frequently referrences a tree planting program that may have included 20,000 or more trees in the late 20's and early 30's.[/color]
With the exception of the right fairway on #17 (which looks cool but does not necessarily improve the hole, at least conceptually to me) which shots do you think you'd play differently if the course looked exactly like that as opposed to today?
Almost every shot from a bunker.
I wouldn't have to play laterally around trees and scrub, I could play toward the hole.
I sincerely challenge your earlier intimations that full recoveries from these waste areas was to be Crump's intent. Please do as you so frequently ask of others, and substantiate that claim.
I'd play my drives closer to the left side of the fairway on
# 12 and closer to the right side of # 17.[/color]
As to #12, to what advantage? You are a good player, but I doubt you are driving the green IN THE AIR. As to 317, assuming you are speaking of the old right fairway that is so clear in those photos, it's very clear to me why that area was let go from a playability perspective, IT WAS TOO EASY, and this is Pine Valley. Remember the initial model, a championship course built to challenge the very best players in the world.[/color]
Patrick,
Please remember I have said a few times through here that the course would benefit from a tree removal program to the outer extension of all bunkers. I believe that. My argument is against the loss of playing angles.
Please do tell us how Crump intended these hazards were intended to be maintained and when and why that was not followed though.
Thanks
-
Mike and Pat,
I looked at Shackleford's book last night. What was interesting to me about those photos and this conversation is two-fold; All of the areas we are discussing as being over-treed today were planted in 1925, and 1925 is something like 7 years after Crump died.
Where did you get this information from.
Those areas were NEVER planted.
The 1938 photos would seem to confirm that.
[/color]
Pat - Look at the pictures Mike referrenced in Geoff Shacklefords book. I believe pages 53 and 66 showed very clear and interesting overhead views.
There are small trees growing in almost all of the areas we have discussed. What I think you ought to find interesting is that 7 years after Crump died there was massive tree plantings. [/color]
What on earth are you looking at ?
NO trees were planted in bunkers.
Look again at hole # 12.
In addition, photos from 1938 don't show any trees in bunkers or interfering with bunker play on # 12.[/color]
How do you feel about that? [/color]
See my above response.[/color]
Tom Paul frequently referrences a tree planting program that may have included 20,000 or more trees in the late 20's and early 30's.[/color]
Those trees were planted at the perimeter of the holes NOT IN the bunkers[/color]
With the exception of the right fairway on #17 (which looks cool but does not necessarily improve the hole, at least conceptually to me) which shots do you think you'd play differently if the course looked exactly like that as opposed to today?
Almost every shot from a bunker.
I wouldn't have to play laterally around trees and scrub, I could play toward the hole.[/color]
I sincerely challenge your earlier intimations that full recoveries from these waste areas was to be Crump's intent. Please do as you so frequently ask of others, and substantiate that claim.[/color]
JES II, you can't be that obtuse.
Look at the photos from 1917 to 1925.
Do you see any trees growing IN bunkers, or between fairway bunkers and the green ? Then look at the photos from 1938.
Do you see any trees growing out of bunkers ?
Do you see any trees impeding recovery from a bunker to the green ? I"ll save you the time and exercise. NO, You don't.
Therefore, its safe to say that Crump never intended to have trees growing out of fairway and greenside bunkers and that he never intended to have recovery from same impeded by intervening trees.[/color]
I'd play my drives closer to the left side of the fairway on
# 12 and closer to the right side of # 17.[/color]
As to #12, to what advantage? You are a good player, but I doubt you are driving the green IN THE AIR. As to 317, assuming you are speaking of the old right fairway that is so clear in those photos, it's very clear to me why that area was let go from a playability perspective, IT WAS TOO EASY, and this is Pine Valley. Remember the initial model, a championship course built to challenge the very best players in the world.[/color]
Why is it necessary to drive the ball 317 in the air ?
If the fairways are fast and firm, a nice draw down the left side can leave me with a routine L-Wedge or bump and run into the green. A little helping wind might even get my ball near the putting surface.
It's also important to note that not everyone plays the back tees, and framing every point solely in the context of the back tees excludes at least 50 % of the interfacing with the architecture.[/color]
Patrick,
Please remember I have said a few times through here that the course would benefit from a tree removal program to the outer extension of all bunkers. I believe that. My argument is against the loss of playing angles.
Please do tell us how Crump intended these hazards were intended to be maintained and when and why that was not followed though.
It's fairly simple.
He intended the fairway bunkers, such as the row that exist on the left side of # 12 to be maintained as fairway bunkers, not forests.
As to why benign neglect set in, my guesses are:
lack of interest, knowledge, complacency or an infatuation with trees.
When it happened is a matter of the photographic record.
The fact that it hasn't been rectified is puzzling.[/color]
-
Pat,
Didn't realize I mentioned back tees anywhere through here, what did I miss?
Please answer my question about bunker maintenance. What were Crump's intentions? When did the practice migrate to the unmaintained version?
In those photos there are hundreds of small trees planted at the edges of fairways (where a bunker does not exist) and bunkers. Agreed, not in the bunkers. But what happens when a tree grows? Obstruction in some form.
The fact that you suggest you'd play down the left side of #12 if there were no trees in those bunkers is preposterous. Not a single one of those bunkers or sandy areas was built, designed, found or maintained with the notion that it would be a low-penalty consequence for a missed shot, not ever. So the risk today is the same as the risk then, only the visual has changed. Remember the mindset golfers and golf course architects had about hazards back then. Fairness was not in the equation, especially not at Pine Valley. If you think the visibility of that green from either tee effects the hole architecturally, I would say bull. The guy that actually has the ability to drive it near that green distance-wise knows the risks and rewards.
-
Sully,
Would you agree that for many golfers, playing purposefully away from a green that they can see can be a very difficult exercise in self-discipline?
There is something very subconscious I believe, that leads us to cross purposes. While the conscious mind thinks, "keep it right, keep it right", the subconscious has that very vivid image of the ultimate target in its head and more often than not rules what the body ends up doing.
Ask Tom Paul about that. He's a big proponent of opening up turning holes so that the attraction of a visible green plays tricks on the mind.
-
Please answer my question about bunker maintenance. What were Crump's intentions? When did the practice migrate to the unmaintained version?
The date it began is immaterial.
What is material is the lack or corrective measures the moment it was discovered[/color]
In those photos there are hundreds of small trees planted at the edges of fairways (where a bunker does not exist) and bunkers.
That's NOT TRUE with respect to the left side of the fairway on # 12.[/color]
Agreed, not in the bunkers. But what happens when a tree grows? Obstruction in some form.
The fact that you suggest you'd play down the left side of #12 if there were no trees in those bunkers is preposterous. Not a single one of those bunkers or sandy areas was built, designed, found or maintained with the notion that it would be a low-penalty consequence for a missed shot, not ever.
I'm NOT talking about or referencing sandy areas.
I've been SPECIFICALLY referencing BUNKERS.
The length of the left side bunker shots makes them a low-penalty shot. Look and see how close to the green they are.[/color]
So the risk today is the same as the risk then, only the visual has changed.
Absolutely not, it's different.
Today, scrub and trees impede extrication and the forward flight of the ball.
Please view some of the later aerials taken circa 1938 and you'll see that the bunkers and the entire left side area is free of trees.[/color]
Remember the mindset golfers and golf course architects had about hazards back then. Fairness was not in the equation, especially not at Pine Valley.
A bunker was inherently it's own penalty, it didn't need trees growing in, or in front of it.[/color]
If you think the visibility of that green from either tee effects the hole architecturally, I would say bull. The guy that actually has the ability to drive it near that green distance-wise knows the risks and rewards.
Visuals have been used to entice golfers since the game began, and the configuration of the 12th hole, with its stepped left side bunkers is no exception.
Part of the beauty of the hole is the tempting visual presented, the "so near, yet so far" mind set.[/color]
-
Ever see the replay of Woody Austin smashing himself in the head with his putter after an especially bad putt? That's the image I get when thinking about you guys being fooled by a hole with this deceptive ability. Sorry, had to say it.
Seriously, Mike and Pat, as I've said all along there is alot to be gained by removing all of the trees that impede play into or out of the bunkers. The bunkers are hazard enough. But no, I don't think you improve the shot decision / architectural quality of #12 by doing so. You would significantly enhance the aesthetics, but you would not play the hole a bit differently without the trees than with. The running right-to-left shot towards the front corner is just as risky with just as big a reward, and all of the other distance/angle options remain intact.
Your goal is fine, it's your reasoning I disagree with.
Pine Valley was built and has retained very wide fairways for the express purpose of giving a good bit of rope but harshly punishing you if you over step. That's pretty much still there.
By the way, have you ever played or seen the course in what would be called very firm and fast conditions? As Jim Finnegan yelled in Tom Paul (or maybe Mike Nilon's) ear "RIDICULOUS".
-
Seriously, Mike and Pat, as I've said all along there is alot to be gained by removing all of the trees that impede play into or out of the bunkers. The bunkers are hazard enough. But no, I don't think you improve the shot decision / architectural quality of #12 by doing so. You would significantly enhance the aesthetics, but you would not play the hole a bit differently without the trees than with. The running right-to-left shot towards the front corner is just as risky with just as big a reward, and all of the other distance/angle options remain intact.
What you're failing to understand and seperate is the distinction between intellect and execution.
Everyone wants to play the hole, tee to fairway, fairway to green, green to hole. But, in the actual play of the game, the reality is: "The best laid schemes o' mice and men Gang aft a-gley." And as such, errors in judgement and execution result in errant shots. It is the nature of consequence of those errant shots, as they relate to the next shot that is the critical point that Mike Cirba and I are trying to explain to you.
Crump never intended golfers to be in bunkers where a tree or tree limb, in a bunker, impeded the golfers swing and intended ball flight. Likewise he never intended a fairway or greenside bunker to have a tree in it, or growing between the bunker and the green. Yet, this is what years of benign neglect have wrought.[/color]
Your goal is fine, it's your reasoning I disagree with.
That's because you don't understand what we're talking about. Hopefully, reading the above will clear things up.[/color]
Pine Valley was built and has retained very wide fairways for the express purpose of giving a good bit of rope but harshly punishing you if you over step. That's pretty much still there.
How is a golfer oversteping when he's in the fairway ?
Shouldn't he be entitled to an unencumbered approach shot into the green ?
Yet, at # 17, encroaching trees prevent that.
That wasn't Crump's intent, that's benign neglect.[/color]
By the way, have you ever played or seen the course in what would be called very firm and fast conditions? As Jim Finnegan yelled in Tom Paul (or maybe Mike Nilon's) ear "RIDICULOUS".
"VERY" firm and fast ? As in systemically "baked out".
No, I've never seen that, and I don't think that's by accident.
[/color]
-
How is a golfer oversteping when he's in the fairway ?
Shouldn't he be entitled to an unencumbered approach shot into the green ?
Yet, at # 17, encroaching trees prevent that.
[/color]
Funny, I never had you labeled as a big proponent of the "fairness" philosophy of architecture.
Tell me something, if you're going to be behind a tree would you rather be in the fairway or the rough?
If a guy hits it in the fairway is he entitled to a perfect lie?
A golfer who misses his target by 20 yards is in no way entitled to a free and clear shot to the green. If he ends up with one, fine, but he is not owed that reward.
Which hole at Pine Valley offers a clear advantage to the player approaching the green from an outer edge of the fairway as compared to the middle of the fairway? I am asking about two approach shots of the same distance that offers a clear benefit to driving down one side or the other.
And by the way, I did not mean "baked out" when asking whether you had played the course under firm / fast conditions, simply wondering if you had. The whole experience elevates to another level.
-
How is a golfer oversteping when he's in the fairway ?
Shouldn't he be entitled to an unencumbered approach shot into the green ?
Yet, at # 17, encroaching trees prevent that.
[/color]
Funny, I never had you labeled as a big proponent of the "fairness" philosophy of architecture.
That's not fairness, it's the blending of the visual presentation the architect has created from the tee, combined with common sense.
Tell me something, if you're going to be behind a tree would you rather be in the fairway or the rough?
I'd rather be on the green.
If a guy hits it in the fairway is he entitled to a perfect lie?
No, I think he should have trees blocking his approach to the green. And, if trees fail, a chain link fence will do.
A golfer who misses his target by 20 yards is in no way entitled to a free and clear shot to the green. If he ends up with one, fine, but he is not owed that reward.
That's one of the most absurd statements you could make.
Since when is a target, from 250 yards, a square yard in the middle of the fairway. There's a reason Crump designed and differentiated fairways from non-fairways. They were intended as prefered landing areas.
If the pin was on the far right of the green, why wouldn't you want to come in from the left side of the fairway ?
Thus moving your target zone off the tee to the far left.
Or, if the pin was cut to the far left of the green, why should the approach from the left side of the fairway be totally blocked by trees that are relatively new to the golf course ?
That you defend this absurdity, is mind boggling.
Do you NOT would oppose the narrowing of the playing corridors at ANGC ?
Why on earth would you endorse the narrowing of the playing corridors at PV ?
Which hole at Pine Valley offers a clear advantage to the player approaching the green from an outer edge of the fairway as compared to the middle of the fairway? I am asking about two approach shots of the same distance that offers a clear benefit to driving down one side or the other.
While hole location and distance to the hole has an influence on the answer to that question, let's start with a hole we're discussing, # 12.
Given the choice of being equidistant, and in either the middle or the outer edge of the fairway, you're far better off being on the outer edge of the right side of the fairway.
If you want other holes that provide the same benefit, # 6
You're far better off being near the left edge of the fairway.
# 8 depending upon which green and the same could be said for # 9, # 11, # 13, # 15, # 16 and # 18
And by the way, I did not mean "baked out" when asking whether you had played the course under firm / fast conditions, simply wondering if you had. The whole experience elevates to another level.
Which is why a ball in the fairway shouldn't have the approach to the green blocked by invasive trees.
-
Patrick,
As I've said throughout this thread, you have not made your case proposing a tree removal program on the basis of shot options and angles. You may want to change the conversation (in fact you've already done so) to focus on whether or not trees should be in bunkers. I've already addressed that.
In your list of holes that provide a significant advantage to approaching the green from the edge of the fairway, only #16 is actually correct, and in that instance only for an extreme front left pin. On the others there's simply not a recognizable advantage to being on a particular side of the fairway.
-
Pat,
Tell me about the trees blocking a second shot on #9 at Seminole. How about the same at Hidden Creek?
-
An early example of planted trees at PVGC? About 1916-7, the 17th:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/PV_HSC17.jpg)
-
Paul,
That's an awesome picture...thanks for sharing.
I'd be curious about the left side of #12. From aerials I've seen going til about 1930, I don't see any trees at all out to the ridgeline dropping off to the 15th below.
-
Pat,
Tell me about the trees blocking a second shot on #9 at Seminole.
Are you trying to state that two wrongs make a right ?
There are no trees BLOCKING the second shot on #9.
There are a few tall palm trees 50-75 yards ahead of the DZ on the left corner as the hole, a par 5, begins to turn left.
A visit to Google earth will refresh your memory.
Your swing from the fairway or the leftside fairway bunkers is not impeded. And, the trees are not immediately adjacent to the bunker forcing you to play laterally.[/color]
How about the same at Hidden Creek?
The 9th at Hidden Creek is a dogleg left, par five with woods on the left and right. There are no trees either in bunkers or directly in front of bunkers that either impede your swing or the flight of the ball to the hole.
Likewise, a visit to Google earth will refresh your memory.
To compare the choking off of a playing corridor, as on # 17 at PV or the direct impeding of one's swing from a bunker, or the impeding of the flight of the ball toward the green from a bunker, such that the ball must be played laterally, to the situations at Seminole and Hidden Creek is absurd.
I know Roger Hansen fairly well and he hasn't informed me of any planting of trees in bunkers or immediately and directly infront of them, as is the case at PV.
You will note that # 17 at PV plays as a dogleg right, as depicted in Paul Turner's picture, thus play is up the LEFT side, which now leaves the golfer with a blocked approach shot to the green. That certainly wasn't Crump's intent.[/color]
Paul Turner,
Your picture is interesting.
With all the talk of a dual fairway, to the right, where would it be in your photo ?
Did that right side fairway ever exist ?
Is there any photographic evidence of it ?[/color]
-
There is lots of photographic evidence of the
right hand fairway on #17 at PVGC.
In Paul's photo (HSC PV 17) it is directly behind the whitest sandy
area on the right side of the photo, it is higher than the bowled
left fairway. It is directly in line with and to the right of the
flag seen on the horizon in hte distance.
There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that it existed.
PJM check your e-mail
-
How is a golfer oversteping when he's in the fairway ?
Shouldn't he be entitled to an unencumbered approach shot into the green ?
Pat,
Tell me about the trees blocking a second shot on #9 at Seminole. How about the same at Hidden Creek?
In your most recent post you answered my question about trees blocking second shots in the context of bunkers. I asked it in the context fairways, as in your post which I quoted.
The second shot on #9 at Seminole for any player in the right center to left edge of the fairway (about 2/3 - 3/4 of the total width) has to negotiate over, through or around a stand of 3 or 4 very tall palm trees. I suspect (no evidence) that these trees were not planted by Donald Ross, but they add a tremendous amout of interest to the hole. As players have gotten longer and the 490 or so yards of that hole has become relatively shorter those trees have kept accuracy and ball control as preeminent requirements for success
#9 at Hidden Creek: I played there once and drove the ball down into the right corner of the fairway on this dogleg left and was forced to hit the ball over or around the trees on the corner of the dogleg to get near the green.
Both of these examples were brought up for one reason, to refute your claim that simply because you managed to drive the ball in a fairway you are "entitled to an unencumbered approach to the green". I selected those two holes because they are the only two of the courses you referrence most that I have played.
-
How is a golfer oversteping when he's in the fairway ?
Shouldn't he be entitled to an unencumbered approach shot into the green ?
Pat,
Tell me about the trees blocking a second shot on #9 at Seminole. How about the same at Hidden Creek?
In your most recent post you answered my question about trees blocking second shots in the context of bunkers. I asked it in the context fairways, as in your post which I quoted.
The second shot on #9 at Seminole for any player in the right center to left edge of the fairway (about 2/3 - 3/4 of the total width) has to negotiate over, through or around a stand of 3 or 4 very tall palm trees.
The second shot isn't the appoach to the green, it's the second shot on a par five to a green that's dogleged left.
Please tell me that you understand the distinction between a dogleg par 5 versus an approach shot of 140 yards from the fairway where the green is blocked by trees immediately adjacent to the green that encroach into the lines of play.[/color]
I suspect (no evidence) that these trees were not planted by Donald Ross, but they add a tremendous amout of interest to the hole. As players have gotten longer and the 490 or so yards of that hole has become relatively shorter those trees have kept accuracy and ball control as preeminent requirements for success
That's open to debate.[/color]
#9 at Hidden Creek: I played there once and drove the ball down into the right corner of the fairway on this dogleg left and was forced to hit the ball over or around the trees on the corner of the dogleg to get near the green.
That's because it's a DOGLEG LEFT on a golf course cut out of the woods, and you were hitting your second shot.
There are no trees adjacent to the green that block the approach shot.[/color]
Both of these examples were brought up for one reason, to refute your claim that simply because you managed to drive the ball in a fairway you are "entitled to an unencumbered approach to the green".
That you can't distinguish between a dogleg and a relatively straight hole, especially on a par 5 versus a par 4, the approach shot to the green on a par 4 versus the second shot on a par 5 and the invasiveness of trees immediately adjacent to a green and trees lining the fairway of a dogleg par 5 far, far removed from the green is mind boggling.
Inherent in the design principles of a dogleg, especially on par 5, is the likely possibility that the features inside of the dogleg block a direct line approach from locations in the fairway. This is called, "design intent"
It differs from individuals, through neglect or deliberate actions, allowing trees to block off the approach to a green on a short par 4, due to the location of the trees, which are immediately adjacent to the green, as on # 17 at PV.[/color]
I selected those two holes because they are the only two of the courses you referrence most that I have played.
You may want to rethink your selection in terms of relevance and application.[/color]
-
Patrick
I don't think the alternate fairway was built at the time of the photo; it's too early. I think CH Alison suggested the alternate fairway in the v early 20s. The 17th green is contoured to Alison's plans but it was supposed to be oriented towards the right hand side, alternate, fairway which it isn't (not sure why that wasn't followed).
The 17th originally had huge cross bunkers for the approach carry, as in Colt's plan, which then was expanded to the sandy waste area following Crump's wishes after he died.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/PV_HSC17a.jpg)
-
The 17th originally had huge cross bunkers for the approach carry, as in Colt's plan, which then was expanded to the sandy waste area following Crump's wishes after he died.
Paul Turner,
Was it a huge cross bunker, or was the green built up as an island green in the middle of the sandy expanse ?
In either event, your picture is marvelous and reveals an unencumbered green and surrounds.
The skyline nature of the 17th green is in harmony with the skyline greens on # 2 and # 9.
I wonder why Crump chose to build at least three skyline greens ?
One has to ask, were the planting of trees behind these three greens an attempt to "frame" them ?
Was the tree planting process behind these three greens a concession to the Americanization of golf courses, the need to pinpoint and define the targeted green ?
I'm curious with respect to the origins of this process behind other greens, such as # 1, # 10, # 12, # 13, # 14, # 15 and # 18.
In that section of the State, it would seem that air circulation would be paramount, and tree planting agronomically inadvisable.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/PV_HSC17a.jpg)
-
Pat,
Interesting that you always seem to walk through the easiest door.
You made a blanket statement...a player is"entitled to an unencumbered approach to the green". I say that is total crap. When I challenged you on this you made your ridiculous chain link fence comment. Now I bring up Seminole and you say because it's a par five the player has no excuse for being blocked out by trees on a second shot towards the green. By the way, would you say those trees obstruct more or less than 50% of the lay up landing zone when the player is in the middle of the fairway trying to hit it to 75 or 80 yards?
You know what I think, instead of me having some political conflict that precludes me from bashing the golf course (as you suggested earlier in this thread) it's actually you with a political motivation that brings up irrational criticisms about the golf course. You are not intellectually honest when discussing issues at PV as compared to other courses which you may well have a political or personal bond with that influences your public commentary.
-
Pat,
Interesting that you always seem to walk through the easiest door.
You made a blanket statement...a player is"entitled to an unencumbered approach to the green".
That's correct.
What you conveniently overlook is that it was in the specific context of the 12th and 17th holes at Pine Valley, where the golfer has an approach shot of between 160 and 40 yards.
However, I'm content to expand the statement to a universal.
The INHERENT approach shot on a par 5 is the third shot, not the second shot.
Any idiot knows that the second shots on dogleg par 5's can be obstructed by trees or other features, but, the second shot is NOT the inherent approach shot.[/color]
I say that is total crap.
That's because you don't know what you're talking about and have confused second shots on dogleg par 5's with approach shots.[/color]
When I challenged you on this you made your ridiculous chain link fence comment.
?[/color]
Now I bring up Seminole and you say because it's a par five the player has no excuse for being blocked out by trees on a second shot towards the green.
You just don't get it.
Go back and reread my statement, which you quoted.
I specifically referenced APPROACH shots.
You continue to cite second shots on dogleg par 5's.[/color]
By the way, would you say those trees obstruct more or less than 50% of the lay up landing zone when the player is in the middle of the fairway trying to hit it to 75 or 80 yards?
What part of the word DOGLEG don't you understand ?[/color]
You know what I think, instead of me having some political conflict that precludes me from bashing the golf course (as you suggested earlier in this thread) it's actually you with a political motivation that brings up irrational criticisms about the golf course. You are not intellectually honest when discussing issues at PV as compared to other courses which you may well have a political or personal bond with that influences your public commentary.
That's absurd, and further evidence that you just don't get it.
Cite me once instance where I've been intellectually dishonest when discussing issues at PV as compared to other courses.
The invasive trees that obscure and block the approach to
# 17 green weren't planted or left there by Crump, and should be removed.
Trees that have been planted or allowed to grow in bunkers, and directly adjacent to and in front of bunkers should also be removed.
That you think otherwise is a clear indication of your lack of understanding with respect to golf course architecture.[/color]
-
Boy Pat, I know my writing is not up to the standards of some on here, but your reading comprehension is lacking as well. I've not defended those trees at all, I simply argued your positions of entitlement and playing angles.
As I said earlier, you have not yet made your case of removing those trees (any at PV) for benefit of playing angles. What proof do you have that Crump intended players to approach the 17th green from the left 1/8th of that fairway when the pin is in the left 1/4 of the green? That's when the trees obstruct.
-
Boy Pat, I know my writing is not up to the standards of some on here, but your reading comprehension is lacking as well. I've not defended those trees at all, I simply argued your positions of entitlement and playing angles.
As I said earlier, you have not yet made your case of removing those trees (any at PV) for benefit of playing angles.
I think I've made it, but, I don't think you've comprehended it.[/color]
What proof do you have that Crump intended players to approach the 17th green from the left 1/8th of that fairway when the pin is in the left 1/4 of the green?
Photographic evidence from 1917 to 1938 is a good start.
If he had wanted that approach blocked, he'd have either done it or directed it.
It's clear that he did neither.[/color]
That's when the trees obstruct.
Here's where you really fail to understand the situation.
The trees obstruct the approach from the left side ALL OF THE TIME. Not just when the hole location is to the left.
The left side fairway slopes in such a way as to promote a fade/slice, which means that the average golfer playing from the left side will fade/slice their approach shot.
With the green being the second smallest on the golf course, about 1/3 the size of the second and eighteenth greens, how can a golfer aim into the trees ? Or, how can the average golfer hit a draw/hook off that lie ? Remember too, it's an uphill lie to an uphill green of about 3,975 Sq Ft.
At 3,975, with trees blocking the left side of the green, the practical square footage for an approach from the left is probably 2/3 to 1/2 that area. And, those trees preclude the execution of a fade-slice, the most common shot in golf, from a lie that promotes a fade-slice.
The tee shot aligns to the left with the right side being semi-blind, hence, the left side of the fairway appears to be the prefered side to aim at for the golfer standing on the tee.
When you combine all of the factors involved in playing the hole, you can't support the blocking off of the green from left side approaches, its gimmickie golf, and not what Crump or any prudent architect would create.[/color]
-
So your position is that Crump's intentions were to allow the golfer to hit his tee ball into the left corner of the fairway with a left pin and be able to slice his second shot up onto the green from there simply because the ground slopes from left to right. Do I have that right? ::)
Crump was trying to build a golf course that was an extreme challenge to the top players in the world. He was not trying to let an average player hit a mediocre tee shot and be able to easily play onto the green. That was his intent. Unfortunately Crump did not live long enough to work and tweek the golf course for decades the way Ross did at Pinehurst and the Fownes family did at Oakmont so it was left to his successors at Pine Valley to guide the courses evolution.
Again, do I think any of the trees you have railed against make the specific holes we've discussed better? No, but that does not change the fact that the holes were not intended to be played the way you're suggesting they were, and thus your argument fails. I do not need to go look at those aerials again, they are very clear. What is not clear is your premise that Crump desired to encourage.... the execution of a fade-slice, the most common shot in golf, from a lie that promotes a fade-slice.
That comment alone identifies your understanding of Crump's intent at Pine Valley.
-
So your position is that Crump's intentions were to allow the golfer to hit his tee ball into the left corner of the fairway with a left pin and be able to slice his second shot up onto the green from there simply because the ground slopes from left to right. Do I have that right? ::)
Absolutely.
Didn't you take the time to study and analyze the pictures posted above, in this thread ?
What does that look like to you ?
It's pretty clear that the approach shot from the fairway was to be unobstructed.
Did you play the hole in the 60's and 70's when it wasn't obstructed ?
Did you view the photos from 1917 to 1938 and beyond, when it wasn't obstructed ?
How on earth can you defend an obstruction of the green which only occured in the last 10-20 years ? And, understanding that, how can you claim it was Crump's intention ?
Or did Crump's ghost visit you and indicate that the way the hole played for the first 70 years wasn't really the way he intended it to be played ?
Firstly, it's not the left corner of the fairway, it's the left side of the fairway where the ground slopes high left to low right, and, that's where the tee faces, and, the fairway to the right is blind.
Secondly, good players or "championship" players fade the ball, they don't slice it.
Hitting a fade from the sloping left side of the fairway is the smart shot, as opposed to trying to hook the ball off of that lie.
In addition, the green is not visible from the tee, but rather than take my word for it, look at the pictures on pages 228-229 in Finegan's.
"Pine Valley Golf Club"
Crump was trying to build a golf course that was an extreme challenge to the top players in the world. He was not trying to let an average player hit a mediocre tee shot and be able to easily play onto the green. That was his intent.
You don't know what you're talking about.
How can you claim that a tee shot hit into the left side of the fairway and close to the green is a mediocre tee shot ?
That's patently absurd. Especially in light of the orientation of the green and the severe back to front slope.
I'd rather hit a fade into that green then a draw.
# 17 would be better classified as a "sporty" hole, not a "championship" hole. One of the beauties of PV is the variety, the mixture of short, sporty holes, like # 8 and #12 and # 17, with the more demanding holes.
Unfortunately Crump did not live long enough to work and tweek the golf course for decades the way Ross did at Pinehurst and the Fownes family did at Oakmont so it was left to his successors at Pine Valley to guide the courses evolution.
There is NO record or indication that Crump would have blocked off approach shots to greens by planting trees in bunkers, directly in front of bunkers or directly adjacent to and in front of greens. That's your unsubstantiated and delusional opinion.
I'm only slightly familiar with Pinehurst # 2 and Oakmont and I don't recall either Ross or Fownes planting trees in bunkers, directly in front of bunkers or immediately adjacent to and in front of greens, effectively blocking approaches from the fairway.
How do you account for the fact that there were no trees blocking the 17th green in the 60's and 70's ?
40-50 years is a lot of time when it comes to the growth rate of pines.
Again, do I think any of the trees you have railed against make the specific holes we've discussed better? No,
Try to follow me, this is a twelve step program.
After a zillion posts you finally CONCEDE that the trees don't make the holes better.
Do they make them worse, or are they "playable neutral" ?
Does a golfer, in the left side of the fairway, have his approach to the green blocked by the trees ?
How do you reconcile the obvious answer with the picture posted by Paul Turner ?
but that does not change the fact that the holes were not intended to be played the way you're suggesting they were, and thus your argument fails.
More absurd logic from you.
# 17 was always intended to play from the tee to the fairway with the left side of the fairway being the area that the tee pointed to, and the side of the fairway that was visible.
Understanding the punitive nature of the areas immediately removed from the fairways at Pine Valley, why would an intelligent golfer risk an ill defined, if not blind tee shot, in favor of a clear tee shot to the left side of the fairway ?
This has to be one of the best examples of your convoluted logic.
I do not need to go look at those aerials again, they are very clear.
Obviously, they're not clear enough.
Look at the ground level photos taken from the 17th tee in Finegan's "Pine Valley Golf Club", perhaps those photos can explain in a quick glance what your mind can't absorb in this discussion.
What is not clear is your premise that Crump desired to encourage.... the execution of a fade-slice, the most common shot in golf, from a lie that promotes a fade-slice.
That comment alone identifies your understanding of Crump's intent at Pine Valley.
It's not that he encouraged it, that's what the landform that he chose to design and construct his fairway on presented to the golfer. It's REALITY. A ball on a high left to low right slope will fade/slice. If he didn't want that configuration and that result, he would have altered it by altering the slope of the fairway. But, he didn't did he. So we have to conclude that that's the way he wanted it. Is that so hard for you to understand ?
I hate to repeat myself, but, you just don't get it.
-
JES II,
Please address the issue of why the trees immediately adjacent to, and in front of the 17th green didn't block the approach shot to that green from the left side of the fairway in the 60's and 70's, and why there were no trees to block the approach to that green from 1917 until more recently ?
-
Pat,
I've covered the tree issue several times through this thread. My position is that the course would improve aesthetically with tree removal to the outer edges of all bunker complexes. This will make several holes easier, not necessarily better, but the visuals will improve significantly.
Tell me something, what do you think Crump's intentions were for green speeds? How fast do you think greens were in his day in terms of stimpmeter readings? How fast are they typically at Pine Valley when you play there? Do you think the 2nd green was designed with todays green speeds in mind? How about 3, or 5, or 15?
-
Pat,
I've covered the tree issue several times through this thread. My position is that the course would improve aesthetically with tree removal to the outer edges of all bunker complexes. This will make several holes easier, not necessarily better, but the visuals will improve significantly.
You're starting to make progress ;D[/color]
Tell me something, what do you think Crump's intentions were for green speeds?
Probably at speeds that were considered the norm for "Championship" play.
But, I believe Crump was keenly aware of the agronomic difficulties and the unusual micro climate that was counter to high green speeds. Survival takes precedence over ambition.[/color]
How fast do you think greens were in his day in terms of stimpmeter readings?
Much slower, although, this summer PV's green were barely putting at 6 when they were open.[/color]
How fast are they typically at Pine Valley when you play there?
I don't think that there is a typical speed.
I think the green speeds are highly dependent upon several components. Weather, agronomic conditions and club events, with Mother Nature taking priority. I've played them when they've been what I would consider excessively fast, and I've played them when they've been very slow and I've played them at all the speeds in between.[/color]
Do you think the 2nd green was designed with todays green speeds in mind?
NO[/color]
How about 3, or 5, or 15?
NO.
I think the very high speeds on those sloped greens bring the golf course closer to goofy golf and well beyond
"Championship" golf.[/color]
-
OK Pat, back to this one. :)
I played Pine Valley yesterday and as you can imagine I was very interested in the specific details you and I (as well as Mike Cirba but he ducked out awful quick ;)) spent a few days discussing based on our memories. I'll try to address as much of it as possible here.
#17 has two sets of (one or two) trees that could be considered impediments to approach shots from the fairway. The first set is just about at the end of the fairway, maybe 70 yards from the green. The second set is the one you referrenced throughout this thread, it is immediately adjacent to the green on the left. The trees at the end of the fairway are relatively small by comparison to the one(s) next to the green, they're actually a different type of tree. The tee does not in any way align the player to the left side, if anything it aligns you up the right center. I would call it the center, but at the very beginning of the fairway (about 140 from the tee) its actually the right side of it. The cant of the fairway you referrenced as steering balls to that left side is only in the right half or two thirds of the fairway, the left one third to half is sloped to the right so as to steer balls back down to the center. I'm really not sure how you can position your argument with the following two points; the fairway slopes to the left which forces otherwise good shots over behind the trees, and at the same time say "most players slice the ball especially with it below their feet as it is when you're behind those trees". That's not really my point here.
My point is to let you know that the only time either of those sets of trees impedes upon a players shot when he is in the fairway is when he is in the furthest left 5-7 yards of the fairway for the last 30 - 40 yards of the fairway, and aiming for the left 1/4 of the green. In other words, if you hit the 200 yards off the tee and are 1 foot from the left rough you will have no tree issues all the way up to the left edge of the green. At 220-260 from the tee and in the left one foot of fairway you will have a two sets of trees in your way to that left 1/4 of the green, the first set is not really an issue unless you have driven way up to the end of the fairway because of their height, most any player can hit it over those trees, especially from the uphill lie given. The greenside trees could very well block a shot coming down on that line (to the left 1/4 of the green).
You will see the next time you're there that while these trees may not have been on Crump's planting list (none of us know for sure due to the circumstances of his death), but they certainly do not overly impede on the golf course. The one thing I really noticed was the lack of incentive for a player with the ability to carry the ball 215 yards or so to actually take on the bunkers on the right for the benefit of a more level approach to the green. There is a really nice looking perch in that right side of the fairway that would be a great spot to play from if the risks of being in the short or long bunker or the trees on the right were more in balance with the rewards. Then again, maybe they are when the greens have a little bounce and some speed, those left corner pins are very difficult to look at from the middle/bottom of the fairway and would be much more accessible from the right perch. Anyway, pay close attention the next time you're there, I think you memory will change a bit.
Now, to give credit where due, on #12 we played the right hand tee and I really wanted to take a shot at the green. I cannot very well hit a running hook so my only approach was going to be a high drive at the front corner of the green, but the fact that I could not see anything left too much uncertainty and I hit a 3 wood out to the right and pitched on. Now remember, that's from the forward right tee, and the left tee is the primary championship tee, and the guys told me they rebuilt the left hand tee this year so as to make it the primary tee for regular play as well. From the left tee you cannot see the green very well even if the trees are removed all the way to the crest of the ridge line (which is only a couple of yards outside of the left edge of the bunkers). Removing those trees would certainly be a visual enhancement (plus the fact that there are about 8 bunkers all through there), but you would not gain the strategic visual effect of being able to see the green.
-
Just out of curiosity, does the tree to the left of #14 at Augusta effect (or ever deflect) balls that would otherwise land on the green?