Kenny:
I have not ignored your question, but I have been reluctant to get into a debate with anyone regarding my perception of some weaknesses at ANGC relative to Pinehurst #2. I have my own opinions, which are not likely to be changed. Nor will I try to change anyone else’s. Since you asked, I will offer mine. Folks can agree or not, but I will not engage in a long-winded defense of them. Remember, I said that AGNC is one of my favorite places on the planet, and I think it is one of the top 20 courses in the world. (I have played almost all of the courses that are generally ranked in the top 20.) I just don’t think it is among the top 5. It’s just a matter of degree and competition. In fact, I don’t think is as good as #2. Here is my logic.
I actually think #2 has a better site. That is just the opposite from the opinion held by most. I’ve seen #2 listed among great courses on a poor site with the assertion that the site is too flat. Baloney! First, many great courses are built on sites much flatter than #2. The Old Course, for example. Sure, there are some flat holes on #2, but holes #4,5,8,9,13,16,17, and 18 have plenty elevation change (but not too much). In my opinion, ANGC has too much elevation change for my taste. There are lots of holes where you tee off from the high ground, walk downhill, and then back up hill to the green. To varying degrees, that applies to holes #1,4,5,6,8,9,10, and 18. Holes 14 and 17 and slightly uphill all the way.
I can’t think of a single hole at Pinehurst #2 that I consider a mediocre or poor hole. I think there are several holes at ANGC that if located on just about any other course would be considered mediocre. On number 1, most players, including many of the tournament players, have to lay back to avoid the deep fairway bunker and the trees on the left. I don’t like an opening hole that takes the driver out of the better player’s hand. #7 has been lengthened too much. It is so narrow and the elevated green is so hard to hit, that the player who can hit the fairway should be able to hit a lofted iron to the green. Not anymore. #8 is a long uphill slog, extremely hard to reach in two, making it a very routine 3-shot par 5. #9 is one of my least favorite holes. Unless you are incredibly long, a good tee shot leaves you on a downhill-sidehill lie to an elevated green.
#17 and #18 are not among the better finishing holes in golf by a long shot. President Eisenhower was right. The tree should have been removed. Now that they have lengthened #17, it has gone from a mediocre to a bad hole. The green was never designed to receive the shot that is now required. #18 gets a pass because of all the drama that has occurred there. I have even seen it listed on this board as one of the best finishing holes in golf. I don’t think so. The chute off the tee is too tight. The trees on the right have invaded the fairway a little more each year. That last long walk up to the green can be brutal at the end of the day.
I would like to see the fairways at both courses widened. That is not likely to happen at Augusta, but I think it will at #2. For all the talk about the greens, both courses are about the approach shot to the green. At Augusta you must hit the right spot on the green in order to have a reasonable putt. At #2, you must hit the right spot to keep the ball on the green, period. In order to hit the required approach, there is a big advantage in playing from the preferred side of the fairway. In some cases those preferred landing areas have been eliminated or reduced by rough. It can be such a beautiful thing. Hit your tee shot to the right spot, set up the best angle to the green, land the approach in the right place on the green, make one or two putts.
I like to say that #2 rewards excellence, tolerates good, and punishes mediocrity. As it should be!
One last point….#2 is modified very rarely, usually moving a tee back. If ANGC is so great, why do they change it every year?
Jim