Does anyone think Pinehurst's greens are too tricked up?

[cary lichtenstein]

I get the impression that Pinehurst's greens are a scared cow on GCA and everyone is afraid to critisize either them or Donald Ross.

Let me throw this out and see if anyone agrees:

1. I think the greens are way over the top, redundant, and repel way too many balls

2. I think that they were designed for a stipmeter of 5 and they no longer a relevant

3. I think Donald Ross, if he were reincarnated today would redo every green to accomodate todays grasses and greens speeds

4. I think if the pro's had to play these type greens every week most would be retired by the age of 30 and not play consecutive tournaments.

5. I think these greens take the joy out of playing golf and over strees the golfer to the point that they are way over the top.

What say you all?

[Jim Johnson]

I would tend to agree Cary.
Gets pretty scary hearing guys like Mickelson stating..."yeah, I'm standing over a putt, hoping I don't putt it off the green".

JJ

[Forrest Richardson]

The greens at No. 2 are the result of many decades of topdressing. Although Donald Ross would enjoy them, it is doubtful he would recognize them.

[John_Conley]

Cary:

I saw yet another example of the gulf between players like them and the rest of us.  In order to have a course where 280 wins, even some of "them" shot in the 80s.  (Three of the final four.)

You probably are mistaking the setup for the actual greens, but much of your point is right on.  A guy I used to caddy for a lot made the cut there in the U.S. Senior Open, so I don't think what you saw today is representative of the course.

[Brad Klein]

Cary,

I'm still trying to figure out the image of that scared cow. Amazing, the power of editing.

[tonyt]

3. I think Donald Ross, if he were reincarnated today would redo every green to accomodate todays grasses and greens speeds

I think he would return them to how he designed them, as he never intended them to be upside down saucers that repel balls off the green that aren't even close to the fringes.

[rgkeller]

Placing the holes another three feet back from the edges of the falloffs makes the course play entirely differently.

But, in general, I agree that Number Two is a one trick pony - with the greens being the one trick.

[Mike_Young]

The middle of the greens would hold everyshot....
It was the US Open...you go pin hunting at high risk...
It allowed for this set-up and now it can go back but if every green was as receptive as people are desiring...those guys would have been 12 under.
I thought the rough was very fair

[S. Huffstutler]

It seems to me that #2 is what it is. I don't think it was "tricked up" at all, it was allowed to become a true test of the best in the world and I think you would agree that the winner played the best round yesterday after staying in contention all week. Everybody complains about golf courses that mimic one another, #2 is like no other, why is that bad? Unlike most, I kind of doubt that these greens are the result of topdressing, in my experience, the edges rise up faster that the center due to working in the topdressing and the sand being pulled to the sides. I know....Pete said..........I think he's full of it.

Steve

[Brent Hutto]

It's hard to argue with the #2 course as a venue for a US Open, given the results. The USGA will do whatever it thinks possible and necessary to have the winning score around par. That's their well-documented intention in this tournament.

For today's players the only way to do that is with heavy rough and with the majority of hole locations just a few feet from disaster. Their model for "best player in the world" is someone who is strong enough to advance the ball out of killer rough, smart enough to play 20-30 feet away from the hole at times and a brilliant putter on greens that are stimping way too fast for their contours. That describes Tiger Woods (when his putter is working), Retief Goosen (most days) and Michael Campbell (at least this week).

What they would really, really like is for the winner to be among the top 10 players in the "fairways hit" statistic each year as well as shooting level par or one or two under. That is not achievable short of a totally penal, over-the-top course with ridiculously narrow fairways and unplayable rough. So they settle for testing strength and slippery-slope putting.

What a US Open always tests is mental toughness, discipline and understanding ones own strengths and limitations well enough to avoid disasters for four long days. Michael Campbell may have a beautiful golf swing and may have just putted out of his mind for a few days but one thing for sure is that he is a smart, tough, disciplined player. That is something he couldn't say ten years ago, BTW. The two times on the back nine yesterday when he pitched out of the rough are a true mark of a US Open champion.

[Bill Gayne]

If "trick" means to deceive or be deceptive then yes the greens are tricked up and I think deception is good. All the false fronts and slopes are very deceptive or tricky. Deception or visual tricks are one of the best tools that an architect has and it's one of the components that make a course interesting for play.

Are they too tricked up? For every day play, yes because the deceptions or tricks in combination with green speeds would make fools of every day players. For the purposes of the USGA conducting a national championship the answer is no.

[John Foley]

When I played there a few years ago I was prepared to have every approach, chip & poorly struck putt roll off into unimaginable places. Just didn't happen. For everyday play the greens held shots and the putting, while challenging, was no where near the terror I expected.

I love the greens. I'll let those in the know, whove done the research, present what Donald Ross intended them to be and if topdressing has exaserbated a design concept. I just think that their unique ness makes #2 a very special course IMHO.

BTW - Sure did see a lot of birdies from Campbell & Tiger yesterday. Seems to me the course identified the best players the past four days.

[Philippe Binette]

I don't think they are trick up... They are difficult but I think players are so use to play an aerial game that they make the course tougher than it really is.

My point is, after watching yesterday's play, that the target are really small if attacked from the air... but I would like to see how somebody could play the course by playing one more club, trap the ball low, one bounce short of the green and a release to the middle of the green...

The good old run up shot... judging the weight of the shots...

A language that young players can't understand and play...

If Faldo was in his prime like he was in the ealry 90', he would have won by a lot... playing accurate soft shots to the middle of the green all day long... Like he did at Muirfield...

[Brent Hutto]

If Faldo was in his prime like he was in the ealry 90', he would have won by a lot... playing accurate soft shots to the middle of the green all day long... Like he did at Muirfield...

Agreed that Faldo c. 1990 would have thrived on yesterday's course. However, Michael Campbell came pretty close to following the model you described. I know there were a couple times he used very short swings with a stronger lofted club rather than swinging hard with a lob wedge. And he seemed to have a very good head for when to swing hard and try to spin it versus bringing it in a little lower with a partial swing. He also either knew or guessed or was lucky in attacking hole locations he could attack and playing to 20 feet when he needed to.

[Mike_Cirba]

I think the following, from the Richard Mandell interview on GCA based on his extensive research, might challenge a few assumptions I've heard reiterated on this thread.

Many theories of how much the greens on Pinehurst Number Two have risen in elevation over the years have been brought forward that just aren’t true. The theory that top-dressing over the years has made the greens so much more crowned than Ross originally intended in 1935 is wrong. There was about a twenty-five year period when the greens were top-dressed before aeration. The top-dressing was primarily organic fertilizers dominated by cow manure. Organic fertilizers eventually decompose. Once they started aerifying, they did so in conjunction with top-dressing. The simple top-dressing procedure occurs after the greens are aerated and all that sand gets brushed across the putting surface and much of it goes into the holes from the aeration process. I am sure that some top-dressing has added inches to the putting surfaces over the years, but not to the extent that the process created the severity of the contours that exists today.

The fact of the matter is that Ross did put lots of roll into these greens when he converted them to grass in 1935. Photographs from a booklet for members upon completion of the work show a good amount of elevation and rolls, the same contouring that I pretty much see today (give or take a few spots). Many early photos show dramatically raised greens. Those greens were your standard plateaux created by scooping up the surrounds and dumping that material on the putting surface. If you walk Number Two and visualize this process you can quickly discern the fact that the material balances on each hole. If the greens rose due to top-dressing over the years, then where is the material that was cored out from the bunkers, hollows, and swales, surrounding the greens? I am not saying that these greens today are exactly as they were in 1936, but a lot closer than most people think.

[Tony Ristola]

Didn't see but a select few highlights of the tournament...I like Mike Young's description: "you go pin hunting at high risk".

Forrest:  Topdressing?  Didn't Rees rebuild the greens before the last US Open?  Did he alter any contours?  Restore any contours?  Anyone know?

Anyone know or heard anyone reference how close the greens today are from 50-60 years ago?
Did the 1970's owners alter any greens?

[A.G._Crockett]

I don't know if tricked up is the right word, but Davis Love III, who played very well and has probably played #2 as much or more than anybody in the field and over a longer period of time, said he had never seen that golf course.

I know that at the end of the Masters, I always want to play ANGC in an almost visceral way.  I can't really say that playing #2 this afternoon would be nearly as appetizing.

Though if given the opportunity, I would agree tee it up....

[Bob_Huntley]

Cary,

I agree with you completely.

Bob

[Steve_Lemmon]

I have played this course a few times, though obviously not in that condition.  As has been stated here before, the course is very fair to the bogey golfer.  You just have to be careful to not aim at the pins, even on some of the chips.  The greens are entertaining, and run true.   Of course, I have never had to put at some of those pin locations.  

[JSlonis]

I believe the greens on #2 have been totally reconstructed at least twice since 1990.  I went to college in NC, and my best friend's parents had a home on the #1 course, we used to visit Pinehurst quite frequently.  I recall seeing the greens being redone when I was there in 1990-1991, and I believe they were again totally redone 7-8 years later, before the 1999 Open.

I don't think the difference is a result of topdressing, it is a result of being totally rebuilt twice in the last 15 years.  Since I never played Ross' original #2 greens, I can't really say how different the newer greens are, but as with most total redo's, something is bound to be different.  

[McCloskey]

I think shotmaking was taken out of the game, making the short game the entire determining factor.
For example, I saw many good shots on hole 15 land on the green at the pin and trickle back off the front, leaving a difficult uphill pitch shot.   Whereas, the winner hit a low pull hook, 20 yards short of the green in bunker.   Of course he hit a magnificent bunker shot, which he did all week, and made par whereas many of the players that hit good shots off the tee made bogey.  
I also saw many shots land right at the pin on holes and trickle off the back of the greens.    My point is that regardless of whether you hit a good approach or not, you were going to have some type of "up and in" shot left.
Therefore, shotmaking was taken out of the game for everyone.   Only the shortgame wizard could win that US open.
Yes, Cary, the greens were over the top.   Just like most US Open green setups are.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

As has already been suggested, the USGA do whatever they can to get the kind of set up they desire.
Once again it appears that they were very close to going to extremes, but just about got it right..the winner at the end of teh week was he who survived...Campbell was superb, very well disciplined and in control of that elegant swing.
I have necer seen him hit so many "control" shots, ib fact one of the biggest faults he has had over the years , has been his reluctanve to gear back on shots, and only have one objective...full out...
Not this week, he selectively attacked pins, hit the spin and no spin shots on demand, a masterful performance..this may make him realise that full out is not required.
Clearly his relationship with his realtively new coach is working out just fine...great job.

[SPNC_Chris]

I don't think the greens are too tricked up. The pin placements and subsequent shot decisions make all the difference. If the pins had all been in the flat, "easy" parts of the greens, scoring would have been abundant.

I watched about 20 groups from the right side 2nd green yesterday. The pin was back right. The green falls off on three sides there. I think I only saw two birdies. Mike Weir chipped in from the right side and Herron drained a very long putt. There were plenty of pars. Most players did not stay on the green with their approach. Most went off back left. The ones who stayed on the green came from the left side of the fairway, where they were supposed to be.

A good drive to the correct position and a conservative 2nd to the middle of the green almost guaranteed a par/long birdie putt. Long right was also an easy up and down. Those trying to score or having a bad tee shot were penalized. Additionally, there was some poor decision making on the part of many of those trying to get up and down.

Difficult? Yes
Fair? Yes
Penal for poor shot and decision making? Yes
Too tricked up? Nope

[Anthony_Nysse]

Pinehurst #2 is not golf. The way the greens were set up to play would not be approved of Ross-Quiet frankly, I thought the course is VERY AVERAGE other than it's greens, which aren't done to Ross' liking.

Tony Nysse
Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI, SC

[Steve_Lemmon]

1.  With pins at the edges, you aren't supposed to shoot at them.  If you do, and the ball goes off the green, you shouldn't be surprised, and you deserve a tough up and down.  
2.  With the length of the players, this course defended itself with its greens. Make them a little slower and put the pins farther from the sides, and you would see lots of 65s.