[wsmorrison]

Matt,

When you say:  "In my opinion if #2 opened tomorrow and didn't assume the same exact position it has today then it's clearly an issue of incompetence and stupidty on the part of the people who should know better."  

Do you mean if #2 opened tomorrow as Donald Ross originally designed it, or after his redesigns over a number of years, or with the inadvertent changes to the greens by Nicklaus and Co., top-dressing, and whatever evolutionary sand splash that might have taken place?  As we have come to understand, the present green features are not altogether as intended by Ross.  So I wish to know if you are referring to the course as is currently?  If so, it would surprise me if it attained such a high regard without the same provenance even after many years of consideration.  You imply that a careful and highly informed expert would invariably see the complexity and sophistication of the design.  That may be so, I've only been there once and can't say for certain one way or another.  But I don't feel that way yet and others that have seen it on numerous occasions are not unanimous in their praise and that's a good thing (Big World theory once again you know).  Only a precious few courses are considered great by all, this does not seem to be one of those courses.

[Andy Hughes]

Matt, we are so darn close I believe!  We've covered the first 530 yards of this par 5, and we only have a short pitch shot left  

When you ask me don't I see that I once again go back to the point you conveniently drive past -- you need people who see greatness in courses whether they be one day or 100 years old.

Yes! I agree. I haven't driven past this point, I have tried to agree with it.

The system -- either from Digest with its addition of "tradition" points or the ill-prepared raters who simply concede greatness simply because of age or need an overdose of visual stimuli for them to rate courses of type I have described several times before.

Yes, we again agree!  The system does not reward new, quality courses, and also too many raters need bells and whistles to consider a course great (of course, you must admit, both of those points argue AGAINST a new #2 opening tomorrow and being ranked in the top 10, as it would be new and not have the bells and whistles/stimuli overload. True or false?)

In my opinion if #2 opened tomorrow and didn't assume the same exact position it has today then it's clearly an issue of incompetence and stupidty on the part of the people who should know better.

That could very well be. Again, I am not arguing the merits of #2 itself.
But please re-read some of your comments on the rating system and also the raters themselves. You freely admit the system is in dire need of fixing, and that many of the raters are:
1. not top quality,
2. not seasoned
3. and not well traveled
With that in mind, why would you think raters with all of those liabilities and issues would then turn around and exhibit what in your eyes would be top flight rating?  

You asked initially why modern design is not recognized and I answered you that there are several designs I can name that would easily crack the top 50 courses in the USA but for the reasons I mentioned, and likely others, they are not.

And I appreciate your candor and your insight on this topic.  I think the points you raised are valid. What I don't understand, though, is why you think #2 would be the one and only course that would be exempt from the "reasons" you mentioned.  

[Matt_Ward]

Wayne:

Guess what -- you're right -- there are people who might see #2 as not be worthy of its position -- I'd like them to debate the finer points with me and others who see it differently. I've played the course a good bit since my college days in the Carolinas and I would love to hear why they feel differently. Wayne disagreements are fundamental in a subjective area like course assessment, but reasoning and rationales is what elevates that disagreement beyond a "he said / she said argument. I also know of people in media circles who see Merion as a waste of time from a future US Open perspective too, but that doesn't make them right in my book.

I can only speak to #2 from the times I have played it during a particular time frame (circa 1975 to present). I saw firsthand what Diamond Head did to the layout and credit Club Corporation for the foresight in returning the course to its more meaningful and favored style.

Wayne -- you admit to playing #2 only one time. I will tell you this candidly that after my first round there I too felt the same way. I was underwhelmed. However, by the time of my 3rd round I could fully visualize the different elements the course had and what was needed to succeed. In my all my travels throughout the globe there are very few courses that I have played that require multiple rounds to "get it."

You're also right in that others may disagree with #2's overall standing, but answer me this what course(s) can you name in which rough is not absolutely needed in order to penalize wayward shotmaking? #2 really does not need high penalizing rough that is the hallmark of a good number of the other top courses people usually praise as great.

How many courses feature the vexing greens you see at #2. The range of options when just off the greens is truly mindboggling IMHO.

Many folks here on GCA often bemoan the courses that overdose on penal options and limit the creative interplay of mind and shot execution. I see #2 as one of those few courses where the expert golfer and the mid to high handicapper can play at the same time and have a unique and fun time in doing so. Few layouts I have played can say that.

Andy:

I answered your question over and over again regarding raters and what's needed. You don't need more people -- you need quality people. With quality people you will get a certain result that the existing Zagat's / Gallup poll mentality doesn't provide IMHO.

#2 isn't exempt because I have outlined for you several reasons why the existing system (the Digest reliance on non-course related criteria / e.g. tradition and its water-down results from a growing panel) and in concert with the inability for many people to grasp archiectural heft without needing a total saturation of visual stimuli in order to grab their attention.

Andy -- there's no perfect answer to all of your comments -- suffice to say -- modern design does have a number of outstanding courses that far too few people have played to make any comments. What usually happens is an overdosing of the old time layouts because it's these layouts that get played over and over again and from that develop a fan base which becomes replayed over and over again when listings of this type are created. You need a proper mixtue of both types of courses -- old and new -- and you need people who can add detailed commentary on why they merit such a high placement.

Sad to say -- it's not the old courses that are at issue -- it's the inability / inertia / sloth of those who don't see the array of superior modern designs that do in fact exist. Ignorance for many is indeed bliss.

[Andy Hughes]

I answered your question over and over again regarding raters and what's needed. You don't need more people -- you need quality people. With quality people you will get a certain result that the existing Zagat's / Gallup poll mentality doesn't provide IMHO.

Well, er, no Matt.  I have not actually been asking you what's needed with raters, and I certainly have not said that more raters are needed.  
What I have tried to do is reconcile your contrasting opinions:
1. Today's raters are awful (as is the system), are not well-traveled or seasoned, need lots of visual stimuli, and work within a system that rewards older courses via things like tradition points.
In conjunction with:
2. If a #2 opened tomorrow, with its subtle nature, without lots of visual stimuli, it would be ranked by the raters in the top 10.
This is the core of the disagreement Matt. Its not about the ills of the rating system and what needs to be improved, its not even about the merits of Pinehurst #2.  The issue is only whether #2 would be in the top 10 if it came out today, and I'm afraid I just don't see how you can describe a system that:
1. is unable to appreciate a subtle course
2. refuses to reward newer courses
3. has inept raters
suddenly and for no reason reverses course and puts a subtle new course in the top 10!  Just saying the course is a good one does not even begin to explain such a bizarre cirumstance.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy --

Quality raters can sort through the contradictions that any credible ratings will ultimately provide.

You can mix and match the subtle designs like #2 along with those of a modern bent that are agreat like Sand Hills.

Keen eyes and open minds can do this.

[Andy Hughes]

Andy --
Quality raters can sort through the contradictions that any credible ratings will ultimately provide.
You can mix and match the subtle designs like #2 along with those of a modern bent that are agreat like Sand Hills.
Keen eyes and open minds can do this.

Very true Matt.  It certainly makes sense to me.
Of course, what you just wrote has nothing at all to do with the contradictions I alluded to in my prior post, or with the topic we have been discussing  
Please Matt, reread what I wrote and if you are so inclined, respond to what it says rather than respond in a way that leads me to believe you either didn't understand what I wrote or don't think enough of it to actually address it (always a possibility with my tortured logic).  
You have put forward positions that are diametrically opposed to each other Matt, and I can't spell it out any clearer than I did in my prior two posts, and I certainly have no desire to try and find a third way to highlight it in this post.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

I spelled it out and responded to the question in the manner I believe addresses the topic. It may not be in the form or style you want but guess what -- that's life.

When an overall rating of courses is done you will invariably get a range of contradictions. In my mind -- that's fine so long as the courses list have some sort of credible story that makes them worthy of such inclusion.

You mentioned about the dearth of modern courses and I answered you concerning what one publication does to minimize their selection through non-architecturally related criteria.

I also explained to you my opinion that many raters fail to be national in scope and likely fail to recognize the qualities of a number of modern designs that I believe merit inclusion among the top courses in the USA.

Clearly, I have stated two positions that on their face are contradictory but I firmly believe that if one were to examine the merits of the courses in question and do so with people capable of making the analytical cross comparisons that are called upon they could do it. I have no issue with the contradictions -- nor should you I dare say -- provided the process that's assembled is capable in unearthing the very qualities that a "best" listing should entail.

Hope this helps ... now we should move on to another more interesting topic ...

[Andy Hughes]

I spelled it out and responded to the question in the manner I believe addresses the topic. It may not be in the form or style you want but guess what -- that's life.

When in the course of a discussion, it is pointed out that your stance consists of two diametrically opposed positions, it may be 'life' to respond with non-sequitors (though how that can be called 'life' escapes me at the moment...), but it certainly does not lead to a productive discussion I wouldn't think.  
So yes, I suppose I would want responses that took the 'form or style' of actually addressing the point, and took advantage of your years in the business and your experience.

Clearly, I have stated two positions that on their face are contradictory...

Yes, you clearly have. In essence you have said that conditions (quality of raters, rating system, what raters look for or need etc) have made event A impossible (a new, subtle course making it into the top 10), so therefore you believe event A would happen.  It makes no sense, especially for someone with your experience, and you try to bolster this glaring contradiction by continuing to emphasize those things that make it impossible!

but I firmly believe that if one were to examine the merits of the courses in question and do so with people capable of making the analytical cross comparisons that are called upon they could do it. I have no issue with the contradictions -- nor should you I dare say -- provided the process that's assembled is capable in unearthing the very qualities that a "best" listing should entail.

I should have no issue with event A being shown to be impossible, and then saying it would happen?  But I do have an issue with that.
The only way I can see your position making any sense Matt is if you stepped back and said that you believe #2 would make the top ten if opened today if and only if the entire rating process was revamped and the process was conducted with an entirely new crop of raters who had the skills and insight you have mentioned.  

[Bill Gayne]

In many respects this has been an interesting thread and at other times tedious. I went to the thrilling 99 Open and since then I've wanted to play the course. I've heard the comment from several people and it has also been pointed out in this thread is that you need to play the course a handful of times to really appreciate and understand the course.

I haven't played the course yet largely due to the idea of paying $355 with the knowledge that I will probably have to come back a couple of more times to really "get it." I realize that all good golf courses aren't fully understood the first time around but it seems I hear these comments around #2 with greater frequency.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy said,

"The only way I can see your position making any sense Matt is if you stepped back and said that you believe #2 would make the top ten if opened today if and only if the entire rating process was revamped and the process was conducted with an entirely new crop of raters who had the skills and insight you have mentioned."

Andy -- guess what -- that's what I have been saying. I'm glad you have finally been able to understand what I have been saying for the last few days. Congrats!

[Tony_Chapman]

Andy -- guess what -- that's what I have been saying. I'm glad you have finally been able to understand what I have been saying for the last few days. Congrats!

Does anyone feel like Matt just gave Andy the final rose?  

Thanks for a highly informative banter gentlemen. I am wondering about this tradition thing that is mentioned by Matt that goes into the rating. As I rank the courses I have played, I find myself doing it as well. Is this bad? For me part of the "experience" of the golf course is seeing the places where cool things have happened. Tiger, Kite and Watson at Pebble, Payne at Pinehurst, etc.

I haven't played a ton of golf courses in my life but I have Sand Hills as 5th on my list. Now, it may be the best "golf course" I have played, but to rank them on a scale of would I play them over and over again, it goes Pebble, Pinehurst, Prairie Dunes and Pasatiempo.

Am I an idiot?

[Andy Hughes]

"The only way I can see your position making any sense Matt is if you stepped back and said that you believe #2 would make the top ten if opened today if and only if the entire rating process was revamped and the process was conducted with an entirely new crop of raters who had the skills and insight you have mentioned."
Andy -- guess what -- that's what I have been saying. I'm glad you have finally been able to understand what I have been saying for the last few days. Congrats!

Ugh.
Could you not have simply, in one sentence, have said what I said above at any point in the past 3 or 4 days, rather than throwing non-sequitors and obscure tangential comments at me??  
Ah well, I guess we got there somehow....

[Matt_Ward]

Tony:

The introduction of  "tradition" was a prop created by the folks at Digest because of the hoopla created when Shadow Creek jumped into the first ten listing of courses.

Digest has inserted "tradition" as a another buffer to keep quality modern courses at bay -- I mean for Sand Hills not be even higher rated than it is speaks clearly to the issue I have just outlined. I also feel the same way for The Golf Club, IMHO it's Pete Dye's best designed layout.

I don't doubt when people play courses they factor in plenty of things but "tradition" is one of those catch-all phrases meant to single out courses from the past. I don't doubt for a New York minute that key classic courses from the past should be rated high -- but I don't need some prop to bolster the bulk of them against the ultimate best of what has been designed in the last 30-40 years.

Tony -- one piece of advice -- you may go to places because "something happened there" but the core element is really about architecture. Many venues selected today (just see the Ryder Cup as an example) are picked because of other considerations -- sometimes the architecture is really near the botton of concerns (see The Belfry as a great example).

[Tony_Chapman]

Matt:

Couldn't agree with you more on the last paragraph. Architecturally, I liked #2, Sand Hills, Pasa and Prairie Dunes better that Pebble Beach.  I guess I was trying to say there is also a little something to be said for the experience. I enjoyed walking around in the locker room at Pebble and the "aura" of Pinehurst.

I definitely don't go to places just because, as I said, "something happened there." Our trip to Pinehurst in a couple of days will include: Mid Pines, Southern Pines, Raliegh CC and Tobacco Road. The main reason is for the architecture.

[Forrest Richardson]

Here — between your rating snipes — are three quick thoughts about Pinehurst No. 2:

1.  Its greens, often the most celebrated component, are in no way as Ross left them, nor as he created them. Welcome to Golf-101. Golf changes. Greens change. Pinehurst is likely in its "distinguished grey years"...handsome and cool.

2.  The Pinecrest Inn is better than No. 2.

3.  No. 2 is made great by other factors, many of which are discussed here, but always take backseats to the physical side of golf. (Ambiance, charm, history, lure, setting, etc.)

[Matt_Ward]

Forrest:

Thanks for the history lesson -- the issues raised by Andy were not about the pedigree of the course or how it has evolved.

It was simply about the merits of the facility that exists now.

I mentiond my only comments concerning #2 come from my rounds there - the first coming in 1975. I can't speak to what the course was exactly when Ross finished his original design. Truth be told -- few here can either from a personal observation.

Nonetheless, the focus here wasn't as you describe "rating snipes" but thought out discussion concerning how the inclusion of certain rating benchmarks go a long ways at keeping certain courses at the top of the scale while denying that to the superb moder courses that have come forward in the last 40 years or so.

[Forrest Richardson]

Matt — You're welcome for the history lesson. By the way, there are probably several here who could attest to the exact condition and configuration of Donald's greens.

The question here is quite simple: Is No. 2 over-hyped?

I say, yes...but with great reverence to the fact that No. 2 deserves its place as a top-rated golf course because it embodies much of the accessory arsenal that courses often lack; ambiance, history, setting, etc.

[Matt_Ward]

Forrest:

What does "history" have to do with architectural aspects tied directly to the course?

When you add the more "history" you might as well say the word "tradition" because in my mind they are equals. That's the nonsense inclusion that Digest did with its ratings and clearly it was added to assist layouts that lack something although I have said many times over that #2 doesn't need such non-architectural categories to be as high as I believe it deserves to be.

#2 is a blessing in elevating shotmaking and positioning without an overreliance on contrived and forced inclusions like water hazards, OB and other visual stimuli meant to sway the playing golfer with such outward appearances but the core ingredients that #2 brings out when playing there is what the core element of golf should be IMHO.

By the way Forrest -- since you say #2 is overhyped can you tell me where exactly you would rate the course compared to your other golfing experiences? Also -- can you tell me if you have played any other Donald Ross course beyond #2?

Thanks ...

[Forrest Richardson]

Matt — History....tradition. Yes, they are related.

I am one of the believers that there is more to a golf course than physical improvement — i.e., a golf course is more than the molecules which form it.

I agree with a rating system that takes into account the aspects of courses which are about its place in history, what happened there, who created it, etc.  Often, these are the very aspects of golf which architects fail to recognize and owners fail to embrace. They make or break sites and projects, even in new work.

I would rate No. 2 very high, but that is because I love many things about it which are not molecules. My exact rating? On my 1-18 scale which pinpoints the hole on which I could leave without feeling I missed much — probably 13 or 14. (By the way, that's pretty high...and it has nothing to do with the finsihing holes!)

Besides his Scioto and his work at Pinehurst, I have not been on any other Ross courses. I've just seen them in photos and on TV.

I feel like I'm being grilled. Can you ask me something else so I have a chance to respond without feeling as if I'm defending something? Please?

[TEPaul]

Now that some have labeled this thread a 'great education' in the philosophy of rating would any of you like my two cents worth on the entire world of rating? No rating thread is complete without it, you know.

As for the history of the greens of #2, the way they are now which isn't like the way they were when Ross was alive would any of you like the story on that involving Ed Connor working for the Nicklaus outfit in the late 1980s when they redid #2's greens to USGA specs, or have you'all heard that one enough times already?

[Matt_Ward]

Forrest:

Being grilled?

You're the guy who opined ...

"The question here is quite simple: Is No. 2 over-hyped?

I say, yes...but with great reverence to the fact that No. 2 deserves its place as a top-rated golf course because it embodies much of the accessory arsenal that courses often lack; ambiance, history, setting, etc."

Forrest, when you say a course is over-hyped (your words not mine) I have to ask compared to what? You do admit that you have only Scioto as a personal observation -- not counting what you see on TV.

Given that extremely limited sampling of his work how do you then go out on a limb and say it's "over-hyped?" You never spelled out in ANY detail what's missing at the course.

I disagree with you regarding tradition -- it's a category used by old time courses to keep the new boys on the block on the sidelines. How convenient.

Courses like Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes and The Golf Club, to name just three, are superb modern designs and should not be chained to a position of inferiority behind other courses simply because of age.

Digest inserted 'tradition' as a category to a large degree because of the quick ascent of Shadow Creek to the first ten of courses in their 100 Greatest poll. To "protect" the integrity of classic courses other non-course criteria were thrown into the mixture to prop up courses against those of a modern bent.

Forrest -- I don't doubt you admire #2 but you're a bit weak on the details that would really flush out the course and how it stacks up against other bonafide contenders for such a high standing. Did you only play the course once?

Thanks ...

[Forrest Richardson]

Matt — Here are your responses:

"Over-hyped" is taken from the question posed in this thread. But, I agree. Pinehurst No. 2 is over-hyped. I believe it continues its elevated place in rankings because it is a very good course with excellent accessory charm and setting.

I do not believe it is essential to judge any golf course by how many layouts of the architect you have visited. It may help...or it may hurt. Depends.

I go out on a limb every day. No big deal.

What's missing at No. 2? In my opinion, it simply is not very exciting. Subtle is everywhere there. What is missing is more creativity and surprise. From what I have studied of Ross, he was more into subtle and not as bold as others. It's my personal opinion that this does not lead to truly great courses unless the site is truly great. No. 2 has a very good site, and Ross used it very well.

I appreciation your opinion about tradition. Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes and The Golf Club are building their own levels of tradition. But unlike No. 2, I feel these courses are great even without any tradition.

I played No. 2 once. Have been around it three times in total. I'm no expert about it, but I'm not a believer that being an expert about a particular course should be an end-all to giving an opinion.

[Matt_Ward]

Forrest:

When you say it's not "exciting" please define for me what aspects in course design are "exciting" for you?

I believe there's plenty of "excitement" at #2 -- it's just not as overt as many other courses. The devil is in the details on #2 and a one time playing visit to a course is a rather limited perspective. I believe #2 is one of those rare bird courses that shows its true character after a few more playing attempts.

Be most curious as to other courses you cite as being "over hyped?"

One last question when you say it's not necessary to play other courses of a certain architect in order to gain a better handle on the type of work he produced I have to disagree with you on that one. When a person has played a representative sampling of an architect's work -- let's say it's more than the # you presented on Ross -- I believe you gain a perspective on patterns the architect creates and what are the strengths and weaknesses of his efforts -- you canalso gauge what evolution, if any, has been implemented. I don't doubt a one shot deal will give you some sort of impression -- but I see it at best as being a very limited one.

One last thing -- when you're talking about sites -- the fact that #2 can produce such high shotmaking values without being able to have a dynamic piece of property speaks to its overall greatness even more IMHO.

Many superb and eye-ful sites can produce mediocre layouts because there's more flash than stash.

[Forrest Richardson]

Matt —

I did not say that No. 2 is "not exciting" — I said it was not very exciting. There is a difference.

For me, a golf course is exciting when the holes present unique challenges from one to the next. At No. 2 there are loads of subtle details — I love these — but the variation is lacking from hole to hole compared to many other celebrated and known courses. This is not at all to say it's a boring course. It's clearly one of the best. I enjoy it a great deal.

Again — No. 2 lives quite a bit on reputation and hype. No better word for it. I am sorry, Matt, but that's the way I see it. You will have to write plenty of rotten stuff about me before I change my opinion...(and get it published.)

You note that I may have a "rather limited perspective". OK. I can accept that. I will continue to look for No. 2's true character after a few more playing attempts. I will. I promise.

Pebble is over-hyped...at least to a degree. But that is not to say I dislike Pebble. I like it very much. But — again — its hallmark is not evident purely within the physical golf course. It extends to the setting and all of the components which make up the place. For now I'll refrain from suggesting any other over-hyped courses.

Yes, you do gain a perspective on patterns the architect creates when you play a lot of their courses. I agree. But, that should not be an end-all requirement to judging any course.

I believe I came away with more than just "some sort" of impression about No. 2. Obviously...else you would not be taking me to task as you are!

[Matt_Ward]

Forrest:

When you say the "variation is lacking" how would you know that from playing the course only once? Might it be possible that you rest a good bit of your case on the fact that #2 doesn't have the visual stimuli and "obvious" eye-ball situations you would be able to unearth from other courses simply because they are greatly assisted with better overall terrain than #2?

Given what I have just said doesn't #2 fare even better when compared because the land it has does not provide the kind of false veneer you see with so many other courses -- even the top ones?

Forrest -- when you say "it's one of the best" can you tell me where it fits in to your overall standing of courses you have played? For example -- if "x" courses are ahead of it by your own definition which courses would they be? Also, if #2 is ahead of other top courses give me an idea of which ones they are as well.

The reason I ask is to get some sort of feeling in how you place #2 when compared / contrasted to others. When people say "one of the best" I have no idea what that means until they place it against other courses.

When you say "one of the best" and then in the very next graph say, "No. 2 lives quite a bit on reputation and hype" I have to ask how do you jive the two together? What reputation and hype are you basing that statement upon?

#2 didn't have an Open until '99 and to the credit of Club Corporation returned the course to a standard (albeit a very expensive one) of supreme achievement. It is both very fair to all types of players and let's be honest doesn't need to OVERDOSE with visual stimuli and penal rough to be a very challenging layout that rewards skill rather than a heavy emphasis on luck.

Forrest -- let me say I believe it's fair for you to apply the over-hyped tag to Pebble because no course -- save for Augusta National -- gets the annual TV time that PB gets. The course also has a split personality with half of the holes merely being pedestrian at best and the other half being world class. #2 has known of the exposure points PB has garnered over the years and it certainly doesn't have an ocean to create the kind of blimp shots from the sky that cause golfers to shake with awe at the visual stimuli.

Forrest -- you and I judge things a bit differently. I don't doubt that off-course elements have a role and a standing when analyzing a course but the CORE -- the essence of how the 18 holes are tied together is always IMHO the first among equals.

Let me also say that without a fair representation of an architect's work -- more than the # you mentioned concerning Ross -- you present a critique that is rather limited and of little overall value in understanding what the architect has done previously and what they have done after that project. Getting that "perspective" provides me with an understanding of how the architect is progressing and where that particular work fits into their overall portfolio.

By the way -- I'm not taking you to task -- we are learning on this site -- right?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()