What makes Pinehurst 2 great?

[Anthony Gray]

  Is it DR's best and why?

  Anthony

[Philip Spogard]

I guess the obvious answer would be the greens which offer a multitude of interesting pinpositions and really puts an emphazis on shotmaking and control. The runoff areas provide a great hazard in themselves and tests the recovery shots for the scratch golfer who are forced to chip/putt/flop of a tight lie. At the same time this is a relatively easier hazard to negotiate for the lesser skilled golfer compared to surrounding the greens with deep bunkers.

I played #2 about 6 years ago when I was pretty close to being a scratch golfer. If the greens are fast and the surrounds cut short it really showcases lack of control (while still providing a great round of golf for the lesser skilled golfer who are 'happy' just being around the green in regulation). I pesonally also liked how the routing took advantage of the elevation changes and provided good variety with some memorable uphill and downhill teeshots.

[Roger Wolfe]

I guess the obvious answer would be the greens which offer a multitude of interesting pinpositions and really puts an emphazis on shotmaking and control. The runoff areas provide a great hazard in themselves and tests the recovery shots for the scratch golfer who are forced to chip/putt/flop of a tight lie. At the same time this is a relatively easier hazard to negotiate for the lesser skilled golfer compared to surrounding the greens with deep bunkers.

I played #2 about 6 years ago when I was pretty close to being a scratch golfer. If the greens are fast and the surrounds cut short it really showcases lack of control (while still providing a great round of golf for the lesser skilled golfer who are 'happy' just being around the green in regulation). I pesonally also liked how the routing took advantage of the elevation changes and provided good variety with some memorable uphill and downhill teeshots.

It is common knowledge among the Ross fanatics I commiserate with that PH 2 greens are no longer "true Donald Ross," having been comprimised by decades of topdressing and "rounding off."  But I understand Ben Crenshaw might be bringing them back in the near future.

[Paul Carey]

From what I have read, Coore and Crenshaw will not be doing any work on the greens under the new project.  Maybe in the future.

[Jaeger Kovich]

I think what makes it great is that DR (Maple and the rest who have made revisions) have worked the land to become on of the most interesting and strategic courses I have ever seen. What makes it even more interesting to me is the fact that the place is pure golf... its not overly pretty, there aren't any breath taking views, just 18 different, demanding strategic and hard golf holes... The perfect formula for great golf.

[Jaeger Kovich]

And it would have been even better if my weekend there last week wasn't snowed out!!!.... seriously... when does it snow in NC?

[cary lichtenstein]

I thought it was grossly overrated, tedious and way over hyped.

I rather play Tobacco Road in the same town, but there are so many DR lovers, each to their own

[Chris Buie]

I think Jaeger got one of essential points right: it's pure golf.  Nothing extraneous.  
There aren't really sketches like you will see of most if not all other courses.  Why?  He lived on the course.  He spent decades walking it and continually modifying it, refining it, perfecting it.  I think that is what makes #2 the purest representation of his vision.  
None of the other courses received this much attention.  Whether or not it is his best is debatable.
I think he intended #2 to be the ultimate test of a golfer.  Both in the shotmaking and in the thinking or strategy.  It is an exacting course but not unfair. You have to hit really good shots or you will pay a price.  There are gradations of penalties - in keeping with how wayward the shot was.  It wasn't do or die.  He was keen on giving a player a chance to redeem themselves with a skilled recovery shot.  Not putting them out of the game because of one bad shot.
Ross probably put more stock in strategy than many people think.  Failure to choose the correct shot rightfully resulted in a fitting level of penalty.  There was no trickery involved.  If you look at the shot you have, you will know what you are supposed to do - and not do.  Some don't read what the course is asking you to do and choose the wrong approach.  That exposes the players lack of thinking.  Having to think about what shot to play is part of what makes this course what it is. But again, there is nothing deceptive about this.  
Strategy should come back into play with Coore and Crenshaw's great vision.  The problem has been that alternate routes to the green have been removed.  You just had to hit your tee shot in the middle or you were done if the rough was up.  I'm pretty sure that is not what Ross intended.  Some of the greens offer a much better approach from one side of the fairway corridor than the other.  For instance, on the first hole you are supposed to favor the right side of the fairway.  With the rough up that is not really much of an option.  During the US Open if you were one foot off the fairway you had to hack it out as best you could.  Most assuredly not what Ross intended.  So C&C should really improve things considerably.  The aesthetics they bring back will improve the look and that is nice but what will really be great is that the intended strategy will be back in play.
Ross intended this to be a supreme test but still be fair.  I would say that is what makes it great - exacting but fair.  A perfect test is what he was after I think.
That's my take anyway.

[Gary Slatter]

Anthony, I'm not sure if it's Ross' best but it is one that he saw every day and was able to guide the maintenance and improvements of for many years.   I liked it but didn't think it was the best of the Pinehurst courses.  I didn't enjoy the putter carriers either.  I had talked to Charles Sanders after he had rebuilt the greens and enjoyed the experience.   it is hard to beat Pinehurst Village as it truly is pure southern golf.

[Matt_Ward]

Anthony:

The key to really seeing #2 for what it can be is when the following happens:

1). The course must play with wide fairways to provide for the elasticity tied to playability.

2). The course must be firm enough to only permit the most purest of approach shots to find their mark nearest to the hole.

When either or both of the above is missing #2 will be far less than what it should be.

In short, course preparation goes a big time way in really highlighting what DR originally envisioned.

And, even with such course conditions -- multiple rounds at #2 can really provide more clues than a solitary visit.

[cary lichtenstein]

I may opine that if a course requires maximum preparation and care, I don't think it can be called great. Day in, day out, Pebble Beach in any condition was a joy to play as are many others.

[Matt_Ward]

Cary:

The requirements I mentioned are not difficult to do -- the width elements have been compromised because of the US Open mentality -- the firmness dimension is something the folks running the show there need to be more aware of from day-to-day.

When those elements are present -- #2 is indeed great. Frankly, many top tier courses are tied to the elements relating to conditioning and how it can elevate the design principles contained within.

[Ian Andrew]

The course must be firm enough to only permit the most purest of approach shots to find their mark nearest to the hole.
When either or both of the above is missing #2 will be far less than what it should be.

I have to disagree...

I've played there in three completely different conditions - the best was real early one spring when the green speed was down.
It made it great fun to play and we had some cool pins that I hadn't seen before (I walked the place twice too).

I've also lagged a putt into the same bunker "twice" after hitting the green in regulation.
The combination of a tough pin with firm and very fast conditions was too much.
I love the place - but that day wasn't any fun at all!

[Matt_Ward]

Ian:

Quite possibly you are gaging the course more from a self interest perspective than from what it can and should be optimally.

I can name plenty of courses (see Oakmont, Oakland Hills / South, Bethpage, et al) where softer conditons of the type you mentioned would provide a similar outcome.

#2 really comes to life with the bounce of the ball.

[Rory Connaughton]

When the fairway widths are such that a ball can find its way into the gathering bunkers and the ground is firm,  No. 2 is a wonderful course. Hard for sure but it also requires some imagination which is where the fun lies. In fact, when its firm, I really think No. 2 bears more than a passing resemblance to a great links.

Sadly, the current maintenance practices seem geared to make the average guest think they are playing the course at Open fairway widths but the reality is that the rough is kept only high enough to ensure that the average guest will be able to advance the ball via a flier from anywhere off the fairway. With the fairways as narrow as they are the gathering fairway bunkers are irrelevant unless you fly the ball directly in.  I think it actually plays far easier now than when wide and firm.

[jim_lewis]

Cary:

I must disagree with some of the points you made.  Tobacco Road is not in the same town as #2. It is not even in the same county. It is in Lee County about 25-30 miles from Pinehurst. In fact, it also isn't in the same league as #2. However, II am happy that you prefer to play Tobacco Road.  If you can enjoy Pebble Beach in any conditions, you are a better man than me.

Jim Lewis

[Mac Plumart]

I love this thread as it highlights the differing opinions that people can have on a course, which is what makes golf and golf course discussions interesting.

For me, I always look forward to Chris B's comments on N.C. courses and Matt Ward's comments on any course.

I can't wait to tee it up there in May.  Chris are you still planning on meeting up with me and my group then?  I hope so.

[Sean_A]

Pinehurst certainly isn't my favourite Ross by a long shot because of the relentless domed greens - far too repetitive for my tastes.  From a purely personal PoV I would like to see the greens restored to how Ross originally intended.  However, I think it is a great course because it has to be one of the very few proper US championship courses in which it is difficult to get oneself in a lot of trouble, yet the course is still resilient to scoring - mainly because of the relationship between the greens and the fairway angles. 

Ciao

[Ian Andrew]

Quite possibly you are gaging the course more from a self interest perspective

Matt,

Whether we choose to admit that to ourselves or not - that is how we all guage a course.

I also always give extra "marks" for glorious architecture created over an average site.
I like quirk too much.
I am self interested - but then again - aren't we all?

#2 really comes to life with the bounce of the ball.

I agree by the way....

[Ian Andrew]

Why is great?

It makes you have to think.

You must plan what you are trying to do on each hole, because if you make a major mistake it often leads to more than a bogey. There’s always a conservative option, but it may very well cost you a stroke because you won’t always get up and down from the edges, but the option is always there. The course is all about testing your patience and short game. It may not be pretty, or the architecture may be too similar for some, but it needs the sum of its parts to be great.

I would never renovate it from what it evolved to – there is huge risk of undoing what makes it great.


My father took me to school when I was younger by intentionally playing short of many greens and getting up and down all day long. He had a great short game in his prime. He pointed out to me that all the trouble came through getting too aggressive at the wrong moment and that only patience would yield a good score. I was only a teenager and was playing really well (12 pars) and was dumbstruck why I hadn’t broken 80 despite playing really great.

[Mark Pritchett]

Because it is fun.  I finished my round and wanted to go back to the first tee for another round.  Interesting greens, walkable and if the proposed improvements open up more options to the greens, well then what's not to like.

I think I would be thrilled to have No. 2 as my home course.

[jim_lewis]

The ongoing discussion about to what extent the current greens on #2 reflect Ross's intent drives me crazy. Why are we so hung up on how the greens evolved to where they are? What makes anyone think they would be improved if restored to how they were at the time of Ross's death? Does anyone even know what that would be? There seems to be a prevailing assumption that they have declined over the past 6 decades. I doubt it. In my opinion they are some of the very best green complexes in the world. I doubt if Mr. Ross would make significant changes if he came back to life today, but I don't know. In my opinion, we should recognize their greatness as they are and quit wondering how they got the way they are.

I also don't agree that they are "repetitive". Yes, they are repetitive in that (1) they are all tough (2) they all demand an excellent and smart approach (3) they will all kick your ass and test your character. The course simply demands well struck and well thought out approaches. The player must accept the fact that some pins are sucker pins, and that often the smart shot is to figure which is the best place to miss the green. There is no place on the scorecard for greens in regulation. If you want to shoot anywhere near your handicap, you need to accept that fact and just be sure not to miss the greens in the wrong spot.

Frankly, if I didn't like #2, I doubt if I would admit it. I do look forward to the improvements that C&C will likely make. I give them (and the owners) credit for being smart enough to leave the greens alone.

[Mark Pritchett]

Spot on Jim!

I would not advocate changing the greens, they are unique and thus should be preserved in their current state. 

[Craig Disher]

The ongoing discussion about to what extent the current greens on #2 reflect Ross's intent drives me crazy. Why are we so hung up on how the greens evolved to where they are? What makes anyone think they would be improved if restored to how they were at the time of Ross's death? Does anyone even know what that would be? There seems to be a prevailing assumption that they have declined over the past 6 decades. I doubt it. In my opinion they are some of the very best green complexes in the world. I doubt if Mr. Ross would make significant changes if he came back to life today, but I don't know. In my opinion, we should recognize their greatness as they are and quit wondering how they got the way they are.

Jim,
The hang up is that #2 is relentlessly promoted as Ross's best, his vision, a place he tinkered with for years, etc. etc. If he wouldn't recognize the greens as they are now, the argument is undercut. The course is still one of the great classic designs and I've never tired of playing it.

I've seen almost every pre-WWII photo of #2's greens and I think Ross actually gave them much more internal contour than they have now. There's a great photo at the Tuft's taken behind the 2nd green in 1936 - just after the greens were converted to grass - that shows substantially more contour than the current green. The contours are in the same places, they are just significantly more severe. Photos of other greens show the same thing. The internal contours - along with the firmer conditions - made the line of approach much more important. Sadly that strategic feature has been lost with the narrowing of the fairways. The "bowl" shape of the greens, really just steep fall-offs on the edges, are certainly a modern addition as Dunlop White has shown. But perhaps they compensate for the loss of the internal contours.

[Matt_Ward]

Ian:

The "glorious" architecture comes to life in all its fullness at #2 when fairways are wide as they should be and when the turf plays quite firm. No doubt others may like the course when such elements are not as prevalent as I just mentioned.

When you say you love quirk -- I do as well -- it's just that I favor quirk that more often than not rewards well-played shots instead of providing such a random outcome that it renders meaningless or near meaningless a well-executed shot. #2 is likely one of the most misunderstood courses because it doesn't provide the visceral "wow" factor -- but when you review the nature of the shots played and how the design ultimately impacted your time there it makes you really appreciate the course. The sad reality is that most people will not play multiple rounds over #2 for a prolonged period of time (save Jim L and others) and as a result the immediate reaction is often a limited one.