[Sean_A]

Pat

If you disagree with my assertion, then you find folks who have said its difficult to play Pinehurst with one ball.  I am satisfied that Pinehurst has a reputation for being wide off the tee and not requiring punishing shots which will likely involve lost balls. 

Length is a small part of playability.  Hazards, opportunities for lost balls and narrow fairway corridors are much more important in terms of playability.

Ciao   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

If you disagree with my assertion, then you find folks who have said its difficult to play Pinehurst with one ball. 
I am satisfied that Pinehurst has a reputation for being wide off the tee and not requiring punishing shots which will likely involve lost balls. 

Sean,

I've been playing Pinehurst # 2 since 1961, venturing to that wonderful spot for decades to play in the North South and on vacations.

I won't say that I'm intimately familiar with it, but, familiar enough that I know your description of not being able to lose a golf ball is bogus.
Did you know that there's a water hazard in play at Pinehurst # 2 ?
Pretty easy to lose balls in those things don't you think ?

How many times have you played Pinehurst # 2 ?

Length is a small part of playability. 


Length is a huge part of playability.

Try playing BPB from the back tees versus the regular or member's tees.
Ditto WFW
Ditto ANGC.

I won't say that those courses are unplayable, but, you sure won't enjoy yourself unless you're amongst those golfers deemed "very elite"

Hazards, opportunities for lost balls and narrow fairway corridors are much more important in terms of playability.

ANGC sure has its share of hazards, bunkers and water, but, it sure is fun to play.......from the proper tees.

What American course has narrow fairways for everyday play ?

[Sean_A]

Pat

Comparing Pinehurst to other proper championship venues I have played, Pinehurst falls comfortably high on the playability scale - as in TOC high. Even comparing Pinehurst to many well known non-championship venues I have played I would say Pinehurst more than holds its own.  We shall have to agree to disagree, but I will be on the look out for folks who think it is easy to lose balls around the course when compared with other big name courses.   I fear you may be a committee of one which makes it quite easy to tailor your theory of a benevolent dictatorship around your Pinehurst is Unplayable Club.  Please send me a badge when an appropriate logo is devised.  I like that sort of stuff.

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

Pat,

No-one is suggesting that you CAN'T lose a ball at Pinehurst, or even TOC.  Of course you can.  TOC has OOB, gorse and water, after all.  However, a moderate golfer, playing conservatively, shouldn't lose a ball but won't score brilliantly.  A decent golfer can play safe and have a higher score and shouldn't lose a ball.  The same cannot be said of Carnoustie, RSG or Muirfield, for instance.  At TOC (and Pinehurst, I imagine) the moderate golfer is not scared of losing a ball.  That is what we are talking about.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

Comparing Pinehurst to other proper championship venues I have played, Pinehurst falls comfortably high on the playability scale - as in TOC high.
All of a sudden the discussion and context are limited to proper championship venues YOU'VE played ?  ? ?
Have you played Shinnecock ?
Bethpage Black ?
How does Pinehurst # 2 compare to them ?

Even comparing Pinehurst to many well known non-championship venues I have played I would say Pinehurst more than holds its own.  

We shall have to agree to disagree, but I will be on the look out for folks who think it is easy to lose balls around the course when compared with other big name courses.

That shouldn't be hard.
Let's start with Shinnecock and Bethpage Black
Heading West, how about Olympic ?

I fear you may be a committee of one which makes it quite easy to tailor your theory of a benevolent dictatorship around your Pinehurst is Unplayable Club.  
Now you've resorted to the extreme and ridiculous in your desperate attempt to prove your point
Would you cite for us, with specificity where I stated that Pinehurst was unplayable.

Please send me a badge when an appropriate logo is devised.  I like that sort of stuff.

You also appear to like fabrication and being intellectually dishonest.
Did you craft the logo for that badge too ?

While you're at it, would you answer the question that asked you to cite U.S. Courses with narrow fairways

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

No-one is suggesting that you CAN'T lose a ball at Pinehurst, or even TOC.  Of course you can.  TOC has OOB, gorse and water, after all.  However, a moderate golfer, playing conservatively, shouldn't lose a ball but won't score brilliantly.  A decent golfer can play safe and have a higher score and shouldn't lose a ball.  The same cannot be said of Carnoustie, RSG or Muirfield, for instance.  At TOC (and Pinehurst, I imagine) the moderate golfer is not scared of losing a ball.  That is what we are talking about.

Mark,

That would seem to translate to wide fairways or wide playing corridors.
And I would agree that width seems to be a major component when it comes to playability.
But, I disagree about the potential for ball loss as a major factor.

Augusta National has both fairway and corridor width and it's a MacKenzie design,
From the members tees it's relatively short at about 6,400

Yet the potential for ball loss is significant, especially on the back nine.

ANGC is one of those courses where immediately after leaving the 18th green you want to head straight for the first tee.
I suspect that the same is true for many when playing TOC.

I would add Seminole to that mix despite the propensity to lose many balls on as many as 13 holes.
Seminole has very wide fairways/corridors, but it also has abundant water and OB .

Even Pine Valley, also blessed with width, holds the potential for significant ball loss.

If there's NO potential for ball loss, is that an indication that the  architecture is less exciting, less dramatic ?
That the architecture lacks the element of high risk ?
I think you can make a case for that.

Where's the significant challenge.......absent risk ?

Getting back to Pinehurst # 2 for a second, do you remember John Daly's trials and tribulations around the greens at a previous Open ?
And, Daly had one of the great touches of anyone.
So if he was confronted with what could be considered diabolical greens and surrounds,  how does that translate to the "ease of playability" for the average golfer, as Sean insists ?

[Mark Pearce]

Patrick,

We appear to be in real danger of agreeing on something.  I'd better watch my step.

I would agree that if there is no potential for ball loss, it may well be a sign of a lack of excitement in the architecture.  That potential for ball loss should, however, be avoidable by a player willing to have a less advantageous position having played away from potential ball loss.  16 at TOC is a GREAT example of this.

As to Daly at Pinehurst, I don't remember this well but it strikes me that a lesser golfer could, probably, have played a shot that would take 3 (or even 4) shots to get down with a high degree of certainty, the problem was the risk inherent in the attempt to get up and down in 2 shots.  I was lucky enough to play 3 rounds on the Championship course at Dornoch last weekend there.  The par 3 2nd hole is a great example.  Miss the green pin high and even getting on the green with your second is a challenge.  The members I played with all deliberately played short of the green and accepted that a good chip would result in a 3 and a poor one a 4.  My two attempts to attack the pin resulted in a 5 (which involved a chip that tested my short game severely) and a larger number.

[Sean_A]

Pat

Comparing Pinehurst to other proper championship venues I have played, Pinehurst falls comfortably high on the playability scale - as in TOC high.
All of a sudden the discussion and context are limited to proper championship venues YOU'VE played ?  ? ?
Have you played Shinnecock ?
Bethpage Black ?
How does Pinehurst # 2 compare to them ?

Even comparing Pinehurst to many well known non-championship venues I have played I would say Pinehurst more than holds its own.  

We shall have to agree to disagree, but I will be on the look out for folks who think it is easy to lose balls around the course when compared with other big name courses.

That shouldn't be hard.
Let's start with Shinnecock and Bethpage Black
Heading West, how about Olympic ?

I fear you may be a committee of one which makes it quite easy to tailor your theory of a benevolent dictatorship around your Pinehurst is Unplayable Club.  
Now you've resorted to the extreme and ridiculous in your desperate attempt to prove your point
Would you cite for us, with specificity where I stated that Pinehurst was unplayable.

Please send me a badge when an appropriate logo is devised.  I like that sort of stuff.

You also appear to like fabrication and being intellectually dishonest.
Did you craft the logo for that badge too ?

While you're at it, would you answer the question that asked you to cite U.S. Courses with narrow fairways

Pat

I usually only give what I get and you are the type of person to dish it out - Ginking people that is.  

You can mention all the courses under the sun - it doesn't bother me.  I can't speak to many of those you mention, but the three prominent ones mentioned have a reputation for being far more brutal then Pinehurst.  Two others I do know of, Oakland Hills and Kiawah, make Pinehurst seem like a picnic.  

To pull your sheenanigans - name five reputable golf experts who claim Pinehurst is remotely unplayable for the average capper.  The sting of the course is in its greens, not the fear of being punished with lost balls.  

As I wrote earlier, on the scale of playability, Pinehurst must surely rate very highly.  Although I don't believe you have come right out and said it, you apparently disagree.  Then again, you do love to Gink folks and I wouldn't be surprised if that was the ultimate goal.  

"...you can play it all day without mastering it, but without fear of ever losing a ball."

"With all the pine-needle roughs, if you lose a ball on No.2, your game is in serious trouble."

Now, go find me two quotes that refute the above statements.

Ciao        

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

We appear to be in real danger of agreeing on something.  I'd better watch my step.

Mark,

Everyone is entitled to my opinion.

I would agree that if there is no potential for ball loss, it may well be a sign of a lack of excitement in the architecture.  That potential for ball loss should, however, be avoidable by a player willing to have a less advantageous position having played away from potential ball loss.  16 at TOC is a GREAT example of this.

But, what about # 17 at TOC.  Ball loss is highly probable
I lost a ball on # 1 at TOC.
I wasn't trying to.
I was playing away from the right side, but, didn't execute properly.

Wanting to play away from ball loss and executing the shot to play away from ball loss are two different things, the latter, not so easily accomplished.

The site, it's terrain and its features often determine the probability of ball loss.
But, when no potential for ball loss exists, is the course not mundane ?

As to Daly at Pinehurst, I don't remember this well but it strikes me that a lesser golfer could, probably, have played a shot that would take 3 (or even 4) shots to get down with a high degree of certainty, the problem was the risk inherent in the attempt to get up and down in 2 shots. 

But, isn't that what golf's all about, attempting to get from point "A" to point "B" in as few shots as possible.
Who settles for getting up and down in 3 or 4 shots from just off the green ?

I was lucky enough to play 3 rounds on the Championship course at Dornoch last weekend there.  The par 3 2nd hole is a great example.  Miss the green pin high and even getting on the green with your second is a challenge.  The members I played with all deliberately played short of the green and accepted that a good chip would result in a 3 and a poor one a 4.  My two attempts to attack the pin resulted in a 5 (which involved a chip that tested my short game severely) and a larger number.

If my golf ball would listen to my brain, I'd never be over par.
But, the beauty, lure and insanity of the game is that the ball doesn't listen very often.

Theory is nice, but playability, in reality is what counts.

[Mark Pearce]

Patrick,

I'm sorry to hear you lost a ball on the first at TOC.  I've seen that done but only by people with no right to be on the course.  I guess you, with IBF, prove that even the best of us can have horror moments.  Was alcohol involved?

As to 17, ball loss is only really likely (and never as likely as probable) if you take on the drive.  Knock a long iron left of the hotel, lay up, pitch on is a good strategy for a hack and, if executed even incompetently shouldn't lose a ball, though it can result in a big number.

Of course the point of the game is getting from A to B in as few shots as possible.  The smart golfer needs to appreciate that sometimes a good chance of taking 3 shots is a better bet than a very small chance of taking 2 but a big chance of taking many more.  Otherwise we'd all just play the most direxct shot, all the time and the brain wouldn't play a role in golf.

[Mike Hendren]

A house might be "livable" but be found lacking stylistically.

Is not the same true for golf courses? 

Style matters.

Mike

[Greg Tallman]

It must go beyond playability (i.e. not killing the 18-20 handicapper). A course can accommodate the average player yet be ridiculoulsy easy for the accompished player and thus fails the test.

Courses such as Augusta and #2 struck a pretty good balance (and were problably closer to ideal before technology got out of control) in that they allow the average player to FEEL they can pull off most shots presented with while the subtlties preclude it from happening very often with those same subtleties(and some added length) keeping the best players on their toes.

Augusta - Hazards that allow for a heroic or safe play (vs. all or nothing) while introducing plenty of thought provoking strategy into the safe play.

#2 - Very little in the way of hazards with the illusion of simplistic appraoches that are anything but though they do allow the avegrage player to get it in the hole without much in the way of penalty shots.

Have stated before - my perfect golf course would be a blend of the best of both.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I'm sorry to hear you lost a ball on the first at TOC.  I've seen that done but only by people with no right to be on the course.  I guess you, with IBF, prove that even the best of us can have horror moments.  Was alcohol involved?

No, a flight, 5 hours delayed out of JFK, no sleep, a missed tee time and finally a reprieve by the starter.

I finished under par for the round despite the OB on the first hole.

As to 17, ball loss is only really likely (and never as likely as probable) if you take on the drive. 

I saw a good number of balls go OB on # 17 off the drive.
I wouldn't say that driving on # 17 was an easy task and losing balls seemed a rather frequent occurance.

Knock a long iron left of the hotel, lay up, pitch on is a good strategy for a hack and, if executed even incompetently shouldn't lose a ball, though it can result in a big number.
That's easier said than done.
I also noticed an inordinate number of ball marks in the wooden shed.
That evidence led me to believe that golfers weren't taking irons to the left, but using drivers off the tee, directly over the shed.

Of course the point of the game is getting from A to B in as few shots as possible.  The smart golfer needs to appreciate that sometimes a good chance of taking 3 shots is a better bet than a very small chance of taking 2 but a big chance of taking many more.  Otherwise we'd all just play the most direxct shot, all the time and the brain wouldn't play a role in golf.

The first time I played Cypress Point, I came to the 16th tee with a rather good score to that point.
The breeze and ocean spray were strong in my face.
The caddy suggested that I play safe to the left, attempt 3 and settle for 4.
I said, "I didn't come 3,000 miles to play CPC, to lay up on # 16, took my driver out, pured it on the green.
I've been rather proud of that shot all of my life.

That urge, to hit an heroic shot, lies within every golfer.  It's part of the lure of the game.
Sure, everyone CAN lay up, but, there's no THRILL in that.
I never heard anyone say, I came to 16, took my 4-iron and played safe down the left side, pitched up and two putted for bogey.
Golfers usually strive to improve and part of that striving is in the mindset that tells them to try the heroic shot, for if you can pull it off once, you can pull it off more than once.

So, laying out or up on # 17, doesn't seem to be the way to play.............. for me.

[Mark Pearce]

Laying up on 17 isn't for me, either, and I also went for the green on16 at CPC.  But these were once (hopefully more!) in a lifetime holes.  If I was lucky enough to be a member at Dornoch, I suspect I would lay up on 2 in a medal.  Likewise, in a competitive round at TOC, if I had a score going, I might well play 17 as a par 5 with a safe, short tee shot.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

The play of many holes can be purely situational, but in a casual round, playing safe isn't an appealing option.... For me

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()