[Andrew Summerell]

I must admit, I quite like the use of skyline greens where the land allows. I've heard some criticism of them in the past, but have found they work well when used correctly.

I find too many new courses have framed greens, seemingly for the sake of it or because it just looks pretty.

If a hole is in a position to have a skyline green I think it is reasonable to say no framing should be required.

[TEPaul]

Andrew:

This is an interesting subject. First of all some of the original skyline greens---many of which may have been directly intentional by the particular architect and many of which may have just been happenstance are interesting today as to whether they're framed or actually skyline!

My experience is when they have the potential to be true "skylines" (where some profile line of the green really is framed behind by just sky) but they have been treed behind over the years it becomes a real memberhip fight to suggest they should return to true skyline.

The reasons for this are a few---good players particularly have become used to framing directly behind greens to lend them a depth perception aid. It basically helps them visually and psychologically key into the approach shot. Some of these generally good players even feel this is something that's now expected and necessarily almost formulaic in architecture.

The higher handicappers and others seem to simply like trees and don't want a real "skyline" restoration for that reason.

But as is so often true on the subject of trees on golf courses---if you can remove those framing trees behind those original "skyline" greens it basically takes no more than a day or two for all those players to say; "Wow, how cool is that?" The immediate and dramatic difference almost always seems to be favorable!!

Real skyline greens do however put a bit more pressure on all players approaching them to concentrate harder and really trust their swings as it is somewhat unsettling to approach greens like that and that was the point of them to certain of the old architects.

They probably aren't anywhere near as prevalent in modern architecture anyway because the most impressive of the older ones have green surfaces that are basically blind to the approaching golfer and that concept (blindness, even if it's just the green surface) that was once hugely prized has pretty much gone out of fashion and popularity now.

Ross could be the master of raised greens but curiously he said that green surfaces should not be blind to the approaching golfer, or else they should be very infrequently used. Ross is the best example I know of an architect who apparently did not practice what he preached---at least he certainly didn't in his earlier work. Ross was the absolute King of high tees/valley fairways/high green sites!

Today that routing technique has an interesting additional effect with his old courses. They tend to play much longer than they actually are sometimes to the tune of a couple of hundred yards longer!! It's interesting!

[Gerry B]

a recent example is #9 (185 yard par 3) at Baltimore CC Five Farms East -they removed the trees behind the green and the new look gives one the illusion that the front bunker is actually closer to the putting surface -very effective  

[TEPaul]

GerryB;

Really? That's very interesting, but why do you suppose that's true? What is it that creates that illusion the front bunker is closer to the green due to the skylining behind the green?

[Gerry B]

Te Paul:

I am not sure. Have played there twice and was fooled by the distance the second time( post tree removal). Kind of the land meets sky illusion that I am told gives novice pilots trouble with depth perception.

Another interesting point is that I used to belong to the only Tillinghast course in Canada -Scarboro. There is a short par 4 (#15)If you teed your ball up in the lower fairway 180 yards from the green -it would be almost the same shot as # 9 at Baltimore -same look - however the bunker at Scarboro is right in front of the green. So I know the shot in my sleep.

I am usually very good at remembering holes the next time I play them and the bunker at BCC looked adjacent to the green from the tee box. Had to be the open sky. I also mentioned this to the guys in the pro shop after the round and they agreed that removing the trees created this effect in addition to allowing additional sunlight and air to circulate around those fantastic putting surfaces.And they are fantastic as is the course.

 Not being a designer -any thoughts from the experts on this - or do I need to make an appointement with an optomestrist

 

[JSlonis]

I would imagine that at one time the left green on the 9th hole at Pine Valley GC was a skyline green.   It would be a large undertaking, but to restore that look would be fantastic.

From a playability standpoint, I'm not sure it is feasible, given the severe slope behind the green toward the 18th fairway.  From an aesthetic standpoint, it would be very good.

[Jason Mandel]

jamie,

having never played pv  i cant be sure of what your talking about, but since i know pine hill has phlly skyline views, i assume that is what u are referencing to.

if that is the case, i would imagine that there was hardly a skyline for crump to use of philly at that point, as most of the architechture that has built the philly skyline was done post say 1950 or latter.

jaso

[A_Clay_Man]

TomP, GerryB, The reason for the "new" deception, was mentioned earlier in the thread. When the trees are removed from the backdrop, it skews perception, similar to NOT having a backboard on a basketball standard.  Likely the slight elevation changes and scale, are responsible for the illusion, too.

RTJ Jr.'s Cochitti lake course has quite a few greens that I thought might have been skyline, at one time. They were all just slighly off, which made me wonder if settleing wasn't responsible for being able to see just a glimer of terrain in the distance.

Rick Phelp's Antler Creek uses creative fairway shaping and angles to either provide, or deny, the greens visibility. A great effect (feature, design element) on a relatively flat site.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JSlonis,

I agree 1000 %, # 9 at  PV would be a spectacular skyline green, and incredibly intimidating.

I've been an advocate of clearing the trees and brush behind that green for decades, but, noone listens anymore  

[JSlonis]

Jason,

The Philly Skyline would not be visible behind the 9th green, but that does not deter a green from being a "skyline" green.

What the definition is, is just seeing mostly the sky, with no definition behind a particular green.

[TEPaul]

I've looked very closely at the effect of returning #9 PVGC to a skyline green and, in my opinion, if that was considered it should be considered very carefully. The reason being if the trees were removed just behind that green it wouldn't really have the same effect it once did and would probably look a little odd now and something like a telescoped corridor into a skyline green. The reason being to create the same effect it once had too many trees that are so much larger than they once were would need to come out on either side (not just directly behind the green). And to do all that on that hole could be a problem for obvious reasons with the hole behind it and to the right of it.

The better candidate on PVGC to return to a true skyline green would be #2, in my opinion, and it would be far more impressive that way than #9 ever was. Plus the trees directly behind #2 are of no real consequence to either hole around that green. Not that many of them behind #2 would need to come out to restore that skyline effect as the green is higher than #9. It would be a lot easier to do on #2 and it would be more effective AND impressive as you can't see the green surface on #2 from the approach as you can on #9.

[JSlonis]

Tom,

Very good point, it would be a massive undertaking.  The trees to the left of the green would have to be removed as would several further down the left side of the hole. The second shot on #9 is very intimidating now, it would really be something if the framing was taken away.

I agree that hole #2 would look great and is definitely much easier to accomplish, but I don't think it would affect the second shot from a players perspective as much as #9 would.  I've never really paid attention to the prospect of #2 as a skyline green, I'll have to give it a better look the next chance I get to play PVGC.

[Jason Mandel]

jamie,

thanks for explaining that to me, for some reason when i heard "skyline" and pine valley, and considering the proximity to philadelphia i immediately thought of having the city in the background, which would be neat, but is obviously not the definition of a sky light green! i guess i am still learning!

now, since you have cleared that up for me, i can tell you that # 6 at white manor, since bobby weed's work, is definitily a skyline green.  when standing about a 120 yards away on top of the hill, and looking at the green, Weed has created the illusion that everything behind the green is fall off, where in fact this is a little bit of a backstop.

jason

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

It is only a masssive undertaking because of the cummulative effect of benign neglect over all of these many years.

Rather then view the project as an overwhelming or impossible task, divide and conquer, do it in stages, there's no doubt that the hole, shot and view would be improved, and after all, wouldn't they just be restoring the hole to its former glory ?

[TEPaul]

Jason:

Standing on the ridge that the 9th green and the 10th tee at PV sits on you can see Philadelphia.

Pat:

There certainly are a lot more trees at PVGC today then there were when Crump found the place and built the course at least they're far more mature ones than they were then. The trees at PV were numerous but quite small in the early teens (probably the result of a massive forest fire or something some decades before he bought the land.

But you should understand that Crump wanted trees there and obviously mature ones and he said so numerous times. He very much wanted the holes to be visually isolated from one another and appears to have gone a long way to have the course designed (routed) for that purpose. Trees have grown up and in over the decades but they are working to take them out and take them back where necessary and where they may get in the way of intended shot angles which has only happened in a few cases. But they're never going to remove that isolated hole effect--nor should they, in my opinion.

So they will never cut them back the way you apparently visualize and just suggested they should and the way it may have looked in the very early days. Crump made his ideas pretty clear about that and afterall the club is named Pine Valley. And one thing PVGC does not suffer from despite their trees is what you just called benign neglect!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Removing the trees from behind # 9 green would in no way impact the "isolation" factor one iota.

Only the backdrop would be affected, the hole would remain isolated from the adjacent road, house and holes on the left and the 11th hole on the right.

But, the enhancement to the hole would be marvelous.

I also agree with you on # 2, another potentially fabulous skyline green.

Do you think that # 15 and # 17 were skyline greens ?

Could skyline greens have been a theme of Crump's at Pine Valley ?

I don't want to put you in an uncomfortable position, but, I don't think it would be inaccurate to say that PV had been asleep at the switch for many years, until recently, with respect to the brush and tree growth.

Sometimes its difficult to see the forest for the trees.

[TEPaul]

#15 never was (ground rises behind it) but #17 certainly was and still is to an extent---although the back tee on #18 is what you see behind the green. Belay that--the former back tee is what you see behind the green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Is that the original 18th tee, or a tee constructed subsequently ?

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick and Tom are both right about this one.  If a club leaves tree growth unchecked for too long, the clearing project required to fix the problem gets so massive in scope that it's hard to swallow.  

I learned this the hard way on the back nine at High Pointe ... I should have taken most of those little pine trees out instead of leaving them for a while for their character.  They got big fast once irrigation was introduced to the vicinity!

The project we're starting in Washington state is a great study in clearing.  It's rolling terrain covered with evergreens, but there are a lot of big ridges and mountain views around it.   It's a development course but we've managed not to get houses located behind the greens, and on some holes I'm thinking about clearing a couple hundred feet behind a green to open up the views -- but I'm afraid I'll wind up with the "tunnel" effect Tom describes because I can only clear up to the boundaries of the lots at the sides, and I don't want to open the course up to the houses too much.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Is that the original 18th tee, or a tee constructed subsequently?"

Pat:

That's actually a most fascinating question about the 18th tee and what all was behind the 17th green at any particular time. Even the 17th green itself is an interesting evolution.

Very few realize that the 17th green of PVGC is as much Hugh Alison as Crump (or Colt). The green is essentially in the same basic place as it was originally by Crump but it isn't the same green. The surface, the bunkering and basic structure of it is Alison's.

Comparing photographs of various early eras and today also show that a lot of different things (earth-wise) were going on around and behind #17 green but it does appear that the basic teeing area that is (was until this year) the tips was always there. At one point it actually appears to be bigger than it is now!

[TEPaul]

"Patrick and Tom are both right about this one."

TomD:

Heretofore that type of thing was considered to be a virtual impossiblity. The basic definition of "mutually exclusive" in fact!

But times are a-changing shortly on GOLCLUBATLAS.com and Pat and I just might have to give up that semi-understood ruse!

However, Pat's recommendation for massive tree removal at PVGC back to a look that appears on that golf course in its very early days (appears on an aerial he sometimes cites) is never going to happen. I can pretty much guarantee that. The reason is the club does not even remotely want that to happen (although tree removal to uncover some shot angles compromised in ensuing years as well as hopeflully Mr Crump's original bunkers on the flanks of some holes are being uncovered from trees as we speak and have been in the last few years.

What Pat should understand better is the club's understanding of how Crump himself ultimately wanted that course to look tree-wise. That's based on what is left regarding what he said on that subject and what he said is he wanted the holes to be isolated from one another visually to a large extent. There's little question in my mind that other than on a few holes the course was actually routed and designed to include and accomodate that individual hole visual isolation using trees and ultimately mature trees! Crump was an impressive talent and he certainly understood and had the vision to know that trees do grow!

Like it or not, what Crump wanted on that golf course should not be compromised today. Revering, as they do, what they understand of Crump's ideas for the course is one of PVGC's ultimate safety nets in the past and hopefully in the future. If only that other great championship course in the south had that on-going "safety net" for it's original architecture and architects and it's originally intended eventual look!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think you have to differentiate between the long term effect of isolation and invasion.

It's one thing to create holes that are seperate from one another due to tree growth and another thing when that tree growth is so unchecked that the trees become invasive to, not only the lines of play, but the swinging of one's golf club.

If PV can insert bunkers into their fairways, it would seem to be an easy task to remove invasive growth from the golf course.

I stand by my assessment of benign neglect.
For years underbrush and trees were allowed to interfere with Crump's vision and creation.

Lastly, is there anything in Crump's writing that would allude to the attaining of "critical mass", a point beyond which he would advocate tree removal or thining.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul
I think you have to differentiate between the long term effect of isolation and invasion."

Pat:

No, I think that's what you have to differentiate between, not me. I think that's precisely what the club is doing and has been doing in the last two or so years. As I've said before they may be doing it slowly but at least they ARE doing it. They aren't on your timetable either, only theirs. That's pretty much the way it's always been there. The thing for you to accept, though, is they are not likely to EVER consider going back to the look tree-wise of that early aerial hanging in the clubhouse you've referred to before. And if somehow Crump's ideal could be expressed by him for PVGC tree-wise I really don't think he would recommend that either. Maybe you would and maybe I might to some extent---not that far back in my opinion though, but again, I seriously doubt they'll ever be interested in going that far back in look or even near that far back.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()