[Chris Buie]

This info was sent to me. I haven't been out there to check for myself yet.
Below is the new 9th hole. The par-3 18th is contiguous with the short game practice area in front of the veranda. That hole is going to be absorbed by the practice area.
Apparently, some chap named Coore pointed out where the new hole could go. So I'm told.
By the way, they are putting new Bermuda greens on the course as well this summer.



Below is the current (soon to be eliminated) 18th hole and surrounding practice area. The red line shows the 18th on 1. (The 18th on No. 2 is top right)

[Matthew Petersen]

How does the new 9th fit in the current routing?

[Chris Buie]

Good question Matthew. The red arrow is my guess as to where they placed the hole. That general area is some of the most interesting terrain at the club.
Since you guys are interested in such matters I put a 1950 aerial (ie. Ross version) below the contemporary aerial for your consideration.


Courtesy of the Tufts Archives:


(I think the race track/polo field at the bottom was lengthened)

[Alex Miller]

Did the current 9 (new 10) get lengthened back towards the new 9th green?

[Chris Buie]

Good question Alex. I don't really know for sure. I'll get around to checking it out before long though.
I kind of doubt they did move the tee back there - if that is in fact where they put new green. It is thickly wooded so they would have to do a lot tree work to put a tee back there. I would think doing all that unlikely. Also the new 10th/former 9th is a relatively tough hole because it plays uphill rather sharply on the approach. Teeing off 150 or so yards back there would be kind of out of step with the challenge level of the rest of the course - which is moderate.
I thought that with the overwhelmingly positive response to the resto of No. 2 they might extend that aesthetic/playability to No. 1. Without the slightest doubt I think that's what they should do at some point in the future. It is a sufficient course now - with more than a few really good holes. However, it could be considerably more. It could be a nice companion piece to No. 2. Why would you not want to do that eventually? Sort out the bunkers properly (à la No. 2) and liven up the greens - which used to be rectangular actually. That would make it distinctive rather than the moderate appeal it currently has - IMO.
It is a good move putting in that new bermuda though. I personally am not too keen on those hairy summertime bermuda greens but the new stuff makes for very interesting putting.

[Greg Tallman]

Surely they have not created the "play the hole then turn around and drive back" scenario?

[Chris Buie]

It could be Greg. I'm not sure. It wouldn't make much difference to 90+ percent of the players because you rarely see people walking No. 1 and routing is not something the usual player there gives a great deal of thought to. They give little if any consideration to the historic dimension of the course as well.
It's actually one of the more interesting courses from that perspective. I wrote about that a little in an IMO thing not too long ago. But that was just briefly touching on that aspect of this course. There is a great deal of interesting information about No. 1 you probably haven't seen yet. Richard Mandell did a very good job of getting into that area in his book.

The overriding point is that this course could be something distinct and considerably attractive to almost all golfers. It was the first course at "America's Home of Golf". Not an insignificant matter. There is a real opportunity to do something very good there. Does anybody think it's a good idea to forgo that opportunity - especially when it would help elevate the club?

[Joe_Tucholski]

Surely they have not created the "play the hole then turn around and drive back" scenario?

Greg from reading an article in last month’s membership newsletter the answer appears to be yes they have created a play the hole then turn around a drive back.  The quote that leads be to believe that is the case is:
"The tee box will be adjacent to the current 9th hole tee box. Cart paths will lead to the new 9th green and then return to the 10th hole tee box."

The majority of the article discusses the change to ultradwarf bermudagrass that Chris previously mentioned.

Chris in regards to your question about renovations, the idea of a better course seems like a no brainer who wouldn't want that right?  That being said I don't know how any restoration/renovation occurs as I figure most subscribe to the if it ain't broke, don't fix it mentality (I have to admit I typically feel this way).  The questions in my mind are what is the purpose of the #1 course?  Is that purpose met in its current state (i.e. is it broken)?  I understand changes can improve upon the purpose but if 90+ percent of the members are currently happy why change?  What are the odds it doesn't improve the course (reno of #4 or renovation/restoration of #2)?  What will the costs be (money and time)?  Would the rates increase dramatically?  Would the membership still want to play the course after changes? 

All that being said those who matter, and probably think it's a good idea to forgo the opportunity, are the resort leadership.  In their mind I would guess it comes down to profits.  Would the changes increase profits for the resort?  I can't really see changes increasing profits and more likely being costs that aren't recouped.

I should also admit I've never played #1...so my opinion might change after a few rounds.

[Chris Buie]

It's nice to hear your point of view Joe. Your question as to whether or not a No. 2 style reno would be a good idea is certainly one that should be addressed.

And you are all too correct that a lot of members subscribe to the 'not broken' point of view. Those are the same geniuses that opposed the No. 2 reno. Those are not the voices that will lead the club back to its rightful place in the pantheon. Fortunately for everybody those voices were placed in the garbage bin with the No. 2 project - and this has improved the club in a lot of ways - not the least, as I'm told, economically.

It appears that a proper restoration (combined with an eventual No. 9 Course by Coore) would enhance the economic vitality of the resort. It would cost less to maintain. It would attract more tourists. And it is not unknown at the Resort that some world class people could do the work at a very reasonable price - certainly much less than Fazio charged the club for improving the really well designed course Ross did with No. 4.

People don't come to Pinehurst for standard fare - which is essentially what No. 1 is now. They come for something else - something not entirely definable. Only a lot of those people have been going elsewhere for a while now. They will come back though - under the right circumstances.

We Americans believe that the substantive works of old masters can be blithely tossed out with yesterdays newspapers - and our Wal Mart culture reflects that brilliance. But although Average Member will not so much as bat an eyelash at such a ridiculous path, I can't quite sign off on that myself. Not trying to be contrary - just think perhaps there might have been some sort of elevated reasoning or talent with the configurations left behind which may possibly be slightly a quantum leap beyond the talent level of those who tamper with such works. And I do think that when you are the custodian of something which does actually enhance the culture then you have more than a measure of responsibility along those lines. Other will disagree. They will think expediency and an appalling lack of vision should be the guiding voice.

It's darkly amusing to me that when the founder of the place was considering making golf the central pillar of the resort he was strongly counseled that this was an unwise move. So this dynamic has been going on for quite a while now. It will continue to go on and you can judge for yourself which point of view should prevail.

[Joe_Tucholski]

Chris how much influence do the members actually have?  My understanding was not a lot.

There is some stuff in your last post I disagree with but I really liked what you are getting at in the following statement:

"there might have been some sort of elevated reasoning or talent with the configurations left behind which may possibly be slightly a quantum leap beyond the talent level of those who tamper with such works. And I do think that when you are the custodian of something which does actually enhance the culture then you have more than a measure of responsibility along those lines."

[Adam Clayman]

Isn't it great that an iconic place is listening to, well, ummm, what basically has been the subtext of gca.com since it's inception?

Specifically, the thoughtful principles that make this sport so much more, than what it's fields had turned into, coinciding with the dumbing down of society.

For reference: As I recall it, it was Oakmont and Shinnythingy, that led the way, (at least publicity wise). Straying away from the poor decisions of the past, to undercover their respective masterpieces. But this is a public facility, with the highest of pedigrees. Let's hope they continue their relationship with the two men who both know, value and respect the principles and histories, of both the sport and the game.

To illustrate just how smart the Pinehurst people were, in respect to the restoration of the Deuce. When they called Bill Coore and asked if he and Ben, would consider doing the job. Bill Coore first reminded them they only had 4 yrs until they were hosting back to back opens and confirmed they wanted it done now. Then Bill asked them "restored to when?"... Their intelligent response? "That's up to you."

[Howard Riefs]

The latest on the new short-game practice area being constructed on what used to be the 18th green on No. 1.


http://pinehurstresort.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/under-construction-pinehursts-dazzling-new-short-game-practice-area/

[Ronald Montesano]

Here is the Pinehurst course site:

http://www.pinehurst.com/golf/courses/no-1/


Here is the map from their site, with the new hole (#9) then back to new #10 tee.

[Steve Kline]

I agree with Chris regarding the renovation of #1.

I've been going to Pinehurst for almost 30 years. Most of that time my parents have had a place there. I've played all of the resorts courses many, many times.

With all of the other options for great resort golf now, the only course that would entice me to go to Pinehurst (strictly the resort) is #2. But, it is really, really expensive. The other courses are nothing special. Typical stuff that can be found anywhere. I'd much rather go to Bandon, Cabot, Streamsong, the UK, Australia than take a trip to Pinehurst. The golf in those other places is far more exciting.

Even when I'm in Pinehurst, I'd rather play Mid Pines, Pine Needles, and Dormie than the resort courses.

#1 and #3 could be made into really fun, sporty courses with the look of #2. In addition to a renovation, the resort would have to be motivated to maintain them at the same standard as #2. That has never been the case in my opinion.

[Ronald Montesano]

I've been going to Pinehurst for almost 30 years. I've played all of the resorts courses many, many times.

With all of the other options for great resort golf now, the only course that would entice me to go to Pinehurst (strictly the resort) is #2.

If you were able to see them with fresh eyes, would #1 and/or #3 hold sway over you? I think it's human nature to grow over-accustomed to a "thing."

[Steve Kline]

I think #3 is better and has more potential than #1. But, even with fresh eyes, I don't think either of them are that big of deal right now.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()