[Sean_A]

I am forever perplexed as to why folks think of Pine Needles as superior to its near cousins Mid Pines and Southern Pines.  I like all three courses, but personally can't detect any obvious difference in quality between the three unless yardage and conditioning are are important criteria, in which case I would agree, Pine Needles takes the cake.  All three are well routed over rolling terrain with greens placed in advantageous spots to create maximum interest without altering the land too much.  Below are comments on the three courses and I would welcome further comments which would help me better understand why Pine Needles earns a top 100 spot in Golfweek's Classic list & Golf Digest's Best Public list. 

SOUTHERN PINES

- The best set of 3s of the three courses. 

- I like how the holes around the house open up for better vistas.

- The best finishing hole of the three and done so with a short hole.

- Best use of water of the three courses.

- Has a few holes which are too tight given the slopes.

Perhaps too much left/right greenside bunkering especially considering the terrific terrain.


MID PINES

- Great start with 1-3

- Has the two most unusual Ross greens I have seen in #s 3 and 12 and these are two of the best par 4s on all of the courses. 

- Uses fairway width better than the other two courses.

- Uses hilly and flat areas very well. I think this is a significant reason why the routing flows so well and makes such a great walk.  Plus, it adds a dimension of variety the other two courses lack.

- Easily the most most pleasant place to hang before/after a game.

- Curious mix of bunker styles and quality that could probably do with re-think.

- Course can be a bit wet in low areas.

- The par 4s can at times seem of a similar distance despite the influence of the terrain.


PINE NEEDLES

- Bunkering style is highly preferable to the other two courses.

- A strong set of par 4s.

- Conditioning is very good.

- Some roads visually interfere. 

- Generally, the more difficult set of greens, but not necessarily the most charming or creative.

- I detest how some of the doglegs work.  For instance, the inside bunker on #10 and the awkward turning point on #18.


Please chip in and lets get to the bottom of this seemingly wide discrepancy of quality between the three courses.

Ciao   














   

[Brent Hutto]

I think your points are generally on target and that taken together, they add up to what I'd consider the truth about those three courses. There are not tons of difference in quality among them in terms of the actual routing and design, each has its strong points.

What puts Pine Needles above the other two in my estimation is a combination of two factors. What you describe as

Generally, the more difficult set of greens, but not necessarily the most charming or creative.

is something I'd describe more strongly. For my game and the games of the guys I've played the courses with the greens at Pine Needles are quite challenging while looking very benign. Maybe the green complexes there just fall in some kind of "sweet spot" that gives me just the amount and kind of challenge that I crave. Southen Pines has a few interesting greens but Mid-Pines has a mixture of a few outstanding greens with some that are very mundane. Whichever hole is the short Par 4 with the green situated up and to the right and some cabins or lodges down below the right side of the green (3rd?) is perhaps better than any green across the road but there are at least 6-8 completely unmemorable ones.

The second factor is conditioning. The two trips I've made to play these courses (two rounds at Mid-Pines and four at Pine Needles IIRC) have found tight, muddy lies on offer at Mid-Pines including for wedge shots. Maybe I just caught it on two bad days but having to hit wedges off bare or thin muddy ground is a huge minus that I simply never experienced at Pine Needles. And of the three courses the bunkers and greens were more consistent at Pine Needles, too. I hate to sound shallow but I enjoy dry and firm turf more than getting mud on my trousers.

So on balance, all three courses have very good designs and a great feel to them. All are great walks by modern standards, admittedly Mid-Pines takes the prize in that area. And I love, love, love the green complexes at Pine Needles which is enough to put it what I've referred to as "all-World" status in my book. The other two courses come up short by way of a few weak greens and occasional poor turf.

[Sean_A]

I think your points are generally on target and that taken together, they add up to what I'd consider the truth about those three courses. There are not tons of difference in quality among them in terms of the actual routing and design, each has its strong points.

What puts Pine Needles above the other two in my estimation is a combination of two factors. What you describe as

Generally, the more difficult set of greens, but not necessarily the most charming or creative.

is something I'd describe more strongly. For my game and the games of the guys I've played the courses with the greens at Pine Needles are quite challenging while looking very benign. Maybe the green complexes there just fall in some kind of "sweet spot" that gives me just the amount and kind of challenge that I crave. Southen Pines has a few interesting greens but Mid-Pines has a mixture of a few outstanding greens with some that are very mundane. Whichever hole is the short Par 4 with the green situated up and to the right and some cabins or lodges down below the right side of the green (3rd?) is perhaps better than any green across the road but there are at least 6-8 completely unmemorable ones.

The second factor is conditioning. The two trips I've made to play these courses (two rounds at Mid-Pines and four at Pine Needles IIRC) have found tight, muddy lies on offer at Mid-Pines including for wedge shots. Maybe I just caught it on two bad days but having to hit wedges off bare or thin muddy ground is a huge minus that I simply never experienced at Pine Needles. And of the three courses the bunkers and greens were more consistent at Pine Needles, too. I hate to sound shallow but I enjoy dry and firm turf more than getting mud on my trousers.

So on balance, all three courses have very good designs and a great feel to them. All are great walks by modern standards, admittedly Mid-Pines takes the prize in that area. And I love, love, love the green complexes at Pine Needles which is enough to put it what I've referred to as "all-World" status in my book. The other two courses come up short by way of a few weak greens and occasional poor turf.

Brent

I certainly can't argue with you concerning conditions and I too think playing off dry turf is very important especially if the weather allows for year round golf.  It is one of the main reasons I don't have a local membership anymore, I tired of wet winter conditions.  That said, I didn't notice any issues in that regard with S Pines.  On about 5 holes at Mid Pines it was an issue and as a fair comparison, Pine Needles during the same time was fine. 

Concerning the greens, you may be right that Mid Pines has some rather straight forward ones, but  don't recall S Pines having the similar situation.  I don't know if they are as "well set into the land" as pine Needles, but they were full of interest.  I can recall M Fay pointing out that some greens were altered by Lafoy and that could account for the difference in how a some of the greens don't sit as well as Pine Needles' do, but I have no evidence to support this possibility.  The thing which made Mid Pines interesting for me was the few greens which really were something different for Ross.  I have never seen anything close to greens similar to #s 3 and 12 on a Ross course and in combination with Pinehurst #2 (not to mention seeing pix of Seminole), they were a real eye opener for me in how I view Ross as a green builder.  Much like the discovery of the variety of Ross bunkering some years ago, perhaps Ross is too often pigeon holed unfairly. 

Do youa have any specific likes/dislikes to pass on?

Ciao

[Roger Wolfe]

When I first joined Golf Club Atlas we were asked what we would like to see done with bailout money.  My wish was the restoration of Southern Pines Country Club.  I think it dominates the other two in terms of design but its conditioning, although much better in recent years, is so poor that it has to be considered #3 on the list.  We can only dream.

[Sean_A]

When I first joined Golf Club Atlas we were asked what we would like to see done with bailout money.  My wish was the restoration of Southern Pines Country Club.  I think it dominates the other two in terms of design but its conditioning, although much better in recent years, is so poor that it has to be considered #3 on the list.  We can only dream.

Roger

What sort of "poor conditions" do you speak of at S Pines?  As related above, by far the most important aspect of conditioning is dry turf.  Does S Pines suffer wet turf problems or are you on about the scruffy nature of the rough etc?

Ciao

[Roger Wolfe]

Its wonderful when overseeded but do not miss a fairway!!  Roughs are no more than dirt.  Once the overseed checks out, there isn't much left anywhere until they repeat the process in the fall.  Good greens, though.  I am not a good ball striker and need a little cushion.  I STILL like it better than the other two, but understand why most visitors to Pinehurst put it a distant 3rd to the others.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()