Pinehurst No. 2 over-hyped?

[Greg Holland]

I know there have been discussions about this in the past, but there is an interesting(?) commentary at www.golfcarolina.com/features/pinehurst-two-hype-422.htm.  It is entitled, "Pinehurst No.2 doesn't warrant the hype." The author, Chris Wallace, states, among other things,
"The only way that 'best' should collide with Pinehurst No.2 in any sentence is if the topic is marketing history."  

"No.2 is nothing more than a collection of decent golf holes accompanied by a diabolical set of greens." (He also commented that only 35% of the greens could be used for hole locations in 1999.)  

"The truth, however, is that the staggering number of accolades that Pinehurst No.2 receives every year has more to do with the golf experience, ..., than the actual golf course."

"In fact, Pinehurst No.2 isn't one of the 10 best courses in NC, and it may only be the fourth-most attractive member of its own family, falling shy of Nos. 4, 7 and 8 from a playability and design standpoint."

The author goes on to state that he considers himself a "purist and I'm a big fan of the classical design, as well as Ross.  But this golf course, albeit special, is hardly a masterpiece."

Comment on the story is invited at the reader feedback page of the website.

Is this really what mainstream golfers believe?
 

[JLahrman]

I can pick a favorite hole at the local munis I play, and trust me that doesn't mean that those places should be nationally ranked.

Isn't the subtlety of #2 its biggest feature?  Doesn't this article confirm this?

[ForkaB]

"Subtlety" is often a cop out for mediocrity or even nonentity.  Think of "The Emperor's New Clothes."

[Greg Holland]

I think you may be right -- seems to me the author got lost in "favorite holes" and "most-attractive" rather than course design and strategy.  The Sandhills do not offer the most beautiful scenery around.  Several of my buddies -- average golfers all -- have their career best rounds on No. 2, yet at the same time it can totally confound the pros.  

[A.G._Crockett]

The author makes his point about a lack of memorable holes at #2 by comparing it to ANGC and PB, which renders the comparison useless.  No other course is memorable compared to those two, which are unarguably THE most televised golf courses in the world (given that we're only talking about the back nine at ANGC).

Sounds to me like an author that doesn't appreciate a subtle golf course when he has a bad day on it.

[Matt_Ward]

The thing about the authors' comments is that he fails to tell you how many times and over what duration has he played #2.

I went to school in the Carolinas and I'm quite familiar with the layout since the destructive days of Diamondhead all the way to the existing ownership by Club Corporation.

#2 is not overrated in my book.

The problem for many people today is that they have overdosed on the visual stimuli that many designs excel at. In many designs you have stunning holes that throw everything but the kitchen sink into the midst. #2 is about the idea that less is more. You don't have all the clutter that obfuscates the tee shots you face -- you simply work back from where the pin is located and position yourself accordingly.

The aspect about #2 is that the whole is greater than its parts. #2 is not about "shock and awe" to borrow a media term from the war in Iraq. It is about a collective sense in knowing how to position each and every shot.

I don't doubt from a "memorable" perspective the course is not in the same league with Pebble Beach or Shinnecock but from the standpoint at golf exsposure -- the idea that failure to execute properly will expose a player's weakness -- well IMHO -- #2 does that far better than just about any course.

One last thing -- when someone says they're a "purist" I'd like them to list a few examples of such work they consider to be top shelf stuff. What's also amusing is when the author says #2 isn't among the top 10 in NC. I'd like to see his listing to better understand that ignorant comment.

[Paul Richards]

Matt says it very well.

Pinehurst #2 is one of the best courses on the planet.  

cheers!

[Brad Klein]

The author's point about 35% of the greens being unpinnable dates to a computer-generated map of the greens from 1999 that showed that only 37% of the putting surfaces exist at a slope under 3-percent, which renders them unsuitable for hole placements but amazingly interesting for putting.

I think he missed the boat completely on the golf course. I don't like playing No. 2 very often, as it's a lot of work and not especially pretty. But it is darned good golf and demanding on your second shots and everything in from there. And it is a pure golf architecture experience - once you negotiate access, fees and the logistics of getting on. Too bad it doesn't have any signature holes, waterfalls, island greens or outcroppings.

[Craig Disher]

It may be one of the best courses on the planet but it is weak on visuals - an important factor to many golfers who get their exposure to "better" courses from visiting resorts or watching tv golf. I've talked to many mid-high handicappers who've played the course and they had views similar to what's in the article. It was posted on a Carolina travel website which may explain a lot about the author's point of view.

[Paul Richards]

Craig

You're correct - I sure wish it had an ocean to the left of the 18th hole - or a heroic carry of 200 yards over an inlet on the 16th - but, alas, it does not.

Despite these obvious 'weaknesses', it still is an awesome test of golf and, unless you love Trump-style golf courses, you will appreciate it.

Cheers.

[Jeff_Mingay]

I totally disagree with the observation that Pinehurst No. 2 isn't "pretty". It may not have the ocean nearby like Cypress Point, but it's a very unique golf course. And quite "pretty" in it's own right. At least in my eyes.

I've seen a lot less attractive golf courses in my travels. And very few as good as Pinehurst No. 2, too.  

[rjsimper]

Depends on what you mean by visuals...but there is something absolutely mind boggling about the visual phenomenon of seeing everything right there in front of you and still not being able to get the job done...sometimes, seeing everything in front of you, framed in tall pine trees, is just as visually pleasing as some foo-foo waterfall or a pond/creek...Tell me that the view from the 17th tee at #2 isnt gorgeous.

#2 is a course that is easy on the eyes...here is the challenge, here is what you have to do, go ahead and do it.  Would I like to play it every day for the rest of my life?  No way - some foo-foo is nice sometimes, too...but all foo-foo and no straight shooting is an imbalance that I'd hate to deal with.  

It's a great golf course- I had the privilege of playing it once and I'd love to play it again.  I'd love to see this guy's listing of the 10 courses he puts ahead of it...

[Matt_Ward]

Ryan:

You hit the nail squarely on the head when you said it would be nice to see the ten (10) other courses the author listed ahead of Pinehurst #2 in NC.

Only in that way would one be able to understand -- if that is possible -- the rationale and reasoning. People can rave or fail a singular golf course in isolation, however, to really follow their thinking one should place the course in some sort of comparsion and contrast position to better understand it's overall position.

To do anything but that leaves the impression to me that the author is simply looking to make some sort of outrageous statement purely to get one's attention. He's certainly done that but I have no respect for such amateurish analysis that he's provided here.

[Andy Hughes]

This is an old gripe, and I certainly have no desire to rehash it with Matt, but....
[obligatory disclaimer: it's a wonderful, challenging, strategic course]
If #2 were built exactly as it currently sits, would it be placed in all the rankings' Top Tens? I have previously said no way and still think so (which is not an indication of its merits or lack thereof-please reread the disclaimer).  And if not, doesn't that imply that it is 'over-hyped' with its current rankinks?

[TEPaul]

One of the things I find most interesting about the famous "crowned" greens of Pinehurst #2 and their famous "roll-offs" is this ongoing story about how they got more that way through constant top-dressing. Somehow that never seemed all that realistic or logical to me.

Have any of you heard this story about the redo of #2's greens into USGA specs in 1987 and the work done by one Ed Connor 3rd on them with his new laser theodite, a computer and computer technology program? What Ed was promising was he could shoot every single little contour so accurately that he labeled his whole process "stealth architecture" (because when it was done no one could possibly detect anything had been done). Ed was basically working under Nicklaus's company in this USGA spec redo.

I heard this story again yesterday from Stephen Kay (although Ed's work on Pinehurst's greens with "stealth architecture is documented in C&W).

What Stephen Kay said is they cored out the greens 12" then started adding in the USGA spec layers and to make a long story short they basically added in 18"!! Stephen, as he told the story kept saying to us---"have you done the math yet"?

His point was they removed 12" and then added in 18". When it came to tying the USGA spec layers into the peripheries of the green sides (like the outside edge of a pie plate) they all basically went "WHOOPS!" How can you tie something in around the sides that's app 6" too high? This was all bascially done under the Nicklaus company.

So when they realized the mistake they talked about removing everything and starting again but the owners of Pinehurst said; "We're not paying to do that!"

How did they end up fixiing this tie-in problem. According to Stephen they just took a small dozer machine and went around the periphery of the greens and removed enough material that way to tie into the sides.

And Presto---you had Pinehurst #2 greens that feel off on the sides more than they ever had before!  

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tom,

Very, very, very interesting post.

I've talked to a number of people about Pinehurst's greens, including Brad Klein and Paul Jett, but I've not heard the story Stephen Kay's told you. Which changes an entire section of the book I'm presently working on, if true!

Man... I think I need to call Kay, first to confirm his sources, then to get into more detail. Thanks, but no thanks... as usual  

[cary lichtenstein]

Do you think Nicklaus would ever admit to this? not a chance

[Adam_F_Collins]

I think reviews like the one that started this thread are quite interesting, as they show where the values of many golfers lie.

I think that one potential result of Rankings is that when a golfer plays a "Top 100" course, they are more apt to ask themselves, "What makes this course so great?" Maybe they look a little more closely...maybe they learn something...maybe not. Maybe they start to develop a little more appreciation for architecture...Maybe just enough to be dangerous...

But sometimes, one just doesn't get it. And that can be hard to take. Particularly when you consider the price of such courses and the resulting crowd which frequents them - often wealthy, successful people who aren't necessarily comfortable with admitting - even to themselves - that something has gone right over their heads...

I went to Art School. In my first year Art History Survey course, the teacher put up a slide of Da Vinci's "Last Supper" and asked what people thought of it. Within two minutes, it became a 'bashing session' on how this picture really wasn't so great. Eventually, I had to interrupt...

"Let me get this straight," I said (to the detriment of my immediate social standing) "You all just started your first year of Art School and you've already got it figured out that the last 500 years of critique just got it WAY WRONG and Da Vinci - Friggin' DA VINCI actually just wasn't that great?"

Just a little information can sometimes go a long way to some misguided critiques...

[Brad Klein]

The story about Ed Connors is basically true. Funny, that his work was all the rage then in the mid-1980s but I don't seem to see his name around much lately. Maybe I don't follow the architecture scene closely enough.

One caveat to the story. I tried to document this in my Ross book. The greens were all re-cored again in the mid-1990s under the direction of Rees Jones, though in fact the work was carried out by Paul Jett. They didn't quite reproduce the birthday cake greens that Connors had left them with. Instead, they relied upon earlier images and maps, but not much that preceded 1962, when Richard Tufts had down drawings and measurements for the Amateur. So they "restored" the greens to the heavily top-dressed profiles of the earlier day, which were still much higher than anything Ross had designed or imagined.

[DMoriarty]

If #2 were built exactly as it currently sits, would it be placed in all the rankings' Top Tens? I have previously said no way and still think so (which is not an indication of its merits or lack thereof-please reread the disclaimer).  And if not, doesn't that imply that it is 'over-hyped' with its current rankinks?

Tom Fazio also suggests that Pinehurst might not fare well in the ratings if designed today by an unknown architect.  I have not had the pleasure of playing Pinehurst No. 2, but I dont doubt that both you or Mr. Fazio are correct.  Moreover, couldnt we say the same thing about most of the great pre-War courses which dominate the top of the charts year after year, a few visually stunning old courses excepted?  

But, if correct, then isnt your post an indictment of the rating system any way you look at it?  

Assuming your post is correct . . .
 
-- If Pinehurst and many other classics are indeed inferior to newer courses rated lower, then the ratings fail to award the new courses their just accolades.  

-- If Pinehurst and many other classics are indeed superior to almost all the modern courses,  then the ratings fail miserably by overlooking world class courses (the hypothetical new Pinehurst, for example) in favor of modern inferior courses.  

Which is it?  Do the ratings overvalue or undervalue classic design?  I think the latter.  

[TEPaul]

One of the interesting facts of both the 1987 Ed Connor/Nicklaus USGA spec redo of the Pinehurst #2 greens as well as the more recent Ress Jones redo that apparently attempted to restore the greens to the shapes of years of top-dress raising  (perhaps less severe “crowning” than the Connors/Nicklaus redo?) is that these Pinehurst #2  “crowned” greens that are so well known as almost Ross’s green design signature are nothing of the kind. Add to this the increased speeds on and around these greens from closer cropped turf and the functional playability of #2’s greens are now probably a far cry from what Ross would have imagined for them.

There does seem to be a real irony here though----and that is that some of the most interesting results in golf architecture and its playabilities are sometimes the results of either apparent mistakes or unintended evolution!!

By the way, the foreword to Brad Klein’s book on Ross by Pete Dye seems to deal very accurately with this interesting story of the Pinehurst #2 greens and how they got to be the way they are now which is apparently quite different from the way they were when Donald Ross was there for so many years.

[Brad Klein]

Tom, you're starting to sound like a true historian of the craft. Pinehurst No. 2's character is unique to the course, not to Ross.

[TEPaul]

Brad:

I'm certainly not trying to run anything on here that's any origianal discovery about Ross or Pinehurst #2---your book covers the whole thing very well. I just thought that Ed Connor story needed repeating for a couple of reasons--it was the second time Stephen Kay mentioned it and I think you as much as anyone would admit that even the vast majority of people interested in golf architecture and Ross think those "crowned" greens of Pinehurst #2 are Ross's very green design signature despite the fact they can't be found anywhere else.

But sure part of the fun and interest of dealing with the histories of golf and golf architecture is exposing and "doing in" some of the huge misperceptions that've been around for so long!

There are many misperceptions on this website too---at least plenty of architects and others who look in on here think so. Some of them think too many on here get so caught up in the over importance of some little things that an architect such as Ross if he could read some of the things said about both the architecture of his time and about him would probably laugh his ass off and say "Just lighten up and try to understand the way it was and just go with the flow". (Well, maybe Donald wouldn't have phrased it quite like that but the intent probably would've been about the same).

[Andy Hughes]

Moreover, couldnt we say the same thing about most of the great pre-War courses which dominate the top of the charts year after year, a few visually stunning old courses excepted?

DMoriarity
Yes, I am quite sure you could say exactly that. But I should preface my opinion by saying that I have not seen most of the courses you are referring to. But I suspect that if an Augusta National or an Oakland Hills or some others were designed by unknowns and opened tomorrow, they would not end up being ranked where they are today.

But, if correct, then isnt your post an indictment of the rating system any way you look at it?

Yes, it is, though tangentially it can be said that if #2 is ranked sixth in the country (or whatever its ranking may be) and the rankings are a mess as they relate to older courses, then #2 is 'over-hyped' or ranked higher than it should be.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

I thought we had put this discussion to bed some time ago!

Pinehurst #2 would receive high marks from people who UNDERSTAND what it is they are looking at. If you have people who are dead set on rewarding points for visual stimuli (e.e. waterfalls, sharp cliffs with elevated tees upon them, etc, etc) then no -- Pinehurst #2 would suffer because it doesn't seek to be an "in your face" type of course.

Likely, many people who are ignorant of the subtle and unique dimensions of the course would fail to notice because plenty of modern design today is about "shock & awe" design. Pinehurst #2 builds on players from repeated play. It's one of the very few courses I have ever played where it's magic is only revealed gradually over a few rounds.

Raters and reviewers who are fixated on the "I must be wowed the first time around approach" will not see what I am saying and it's likely if ratings were left to those simple-minded folks it's unlikely a course of such stature would be recognized. Fortunately, there are other raters / reviewers who see it differently.