The case AGAINST the restoration of Pinehurst #2

[Mark Bourgeois]

Sandy waste areas do not "properly" punish misses per Strategic School of Design. One of two scenarios:
1) Ball runs out so far that penalty for being out of position on subsequent shot is reduced / negated by short distance needed to hit shot -- this distance much shorter than when area was rough (even if it were fairway?);
2) Ball runs into wire grass allowing for no recovery shot, just a hack back out to fairway.

Therefore, resolved: the course loses some -- a lot? How much? -- of what made it one of the world's greatest Strategic School designs.

Posted for discussion.

[Jon Wiggett]

Mark,

to comment on your first point I was not aware that it was one of the ideas of the Strategic School of Design to punish. I thought the idea was to offer the player multiple options so as he/she could choose the one that most suited their game.

As for point two, is this not rub of the green? I would say that the wire grass is no different to the deep pot bunkers seen at many of the links courses in the UK which often only allow the player to play out sideways.

I do not see the validity of your gripe.

Jon

[Rich Goodale]

Good post, Mark

Un-tumbling tumbleweeds in the middle of bunkers are a stupid "design" feature.  Was DJR responsible for this at ye olde Pinehurst?  If, on the other hand, some thnk they are an intelligent design feature, why restrict them to bunkers and waste areas?  Why not patches of "wire grass" in the middle of the fairway?  We could call them "center-line un-tumbling tumbleweeds" and half or this DG would find a supportive quote from an article by Major Humblenot-Travesty in the Aug. 1897 issue of Country Life and salivate in anticipation of watching others play courses with these "features."

As for your point #1, I think this is one reason that TPC-Sawgrass decided to convert Pete Dye's waste areas into proper (i.e. punishment rather than reward for any crime) hazards.

Rich

[Craig Disher]

Mark,
You slide over the fact that one of the major features of the restoration is the increased fairway width.  The problem with the old course was that the way it was set up wasn't all that great a strategic design. Where is the strategy when a drive needs to be placed in a 20-25 yard fairway? The strategic challenge on #2 was driving to the right position on the fairway, not a forced play to a narrow target.

As for the waste areas not offering sufficient penalty - I'd suggest playing a few rounds before judging. Rather than the consistent but difficult lie that you'd find in the rough, the waste area is a roll of the dice. The lie can range from perfect to one that requires playing the ball back towards the tee. What would you favor? Fairways 40-50 yards wide bordered by bermuda rough? I think we should also give the waste areas another year or two to grow in to fully understand how they work with the design. But even now, I think they are a vast improvement.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Craig, bravo for width.

The spirit of the title and first post really is just to spark debate about a few questions.

Re sandy waste areas, I'm not saying anyone would purposely hit into them. I'm just wondering if the penalty for hitting into them is either a) too little or (after the USGA is done planting) b) crap shoot / too much. If someone's miss enables their ball to roll so far down they've just got a wedge in, then angles no longer matter. In contrast, if someone's miss plops their ball into wire grass they are unable to attempt a full recovery due to distance, lie, or both. In both cases hasn't something been lost?

I'm just wondering if it's possible to strike the right balance using this type of feature. I am particularly interested in maximizing playability for the rest of us while challenging the best of us (ex-PGAT as the game they play is not golf).

Am I asking the wrong questions? Is the premise flawed?

[Craig Disher]

If the waste areas are such that hitting into them is a good play then they detract from the strategy required. OTOH, if they are so penal that it's a dropped shot if you do, then (given the added roll from the f&f conditions on the fairways) we're back to playing the old design. I think of them as adding a good helping of randomness - something that might not suit better players in medal play.

[Chris Buie]

Well, it's a worthwhile thing to hold the sacred cows held up to scrutiny - as long as it is approached in a properly inquisitive manner. If such a sacred cow really is great then it will stand up to the analysis.
I guess there is a small minority who aren't keen on the restored version. Certainly, they are entitled to their own take on the matter. The majority (including myself) think it is an enormous improvement. Craig was exactly right in speaking of the restored angles of play with the fairway width. Going off the fairways is an adventure (as it should be) which IMHO is a light year better than regular or deep rough. There is a lot of art required from the player once they are in those areas. Sure it's possible you may be closer to the hole - but you still have to hit that shot off those wonderfully unpredictable areas. The best way to deal with them is...not to hit it on there in the first place. If you are on "clean" sandy areas or pine straw it is not such an easy shot. It's slightly disorienting. I've been hitting off sandy and wire grass patches for decades and you just don't get up there and swing it like you do on the fairway. You've got to get your footing right for starters - and I'm surprised how many don't get settled in properly - a little like you would in a regular bunker. After that you've got to "sweep" it a little differently than you ordinarily would from the fairway. You want to make really sure you are not hitting off a root as well. It's game over for a long time if you hit a root full speed. I could go on, but all in all its a different kind of shot - the swing is a little different and that difference makes for some wayward shots - even from talented players. You have to be especially focused to pull it off. It helps to be experienced as well - but even then those shots are almost always singular - there's usually at least some minor differences.
Hitting into wire grass is not like being in ankle deep rough. There is virtually zero art in the latter which is one of the reasons I despise it. If you are in the random wiregrass which is spaced out and not all clumped together then you are going to have varying degrees of playability. Most of the time you will be able to bend your shot near or even on the green. You rarely have a 100% no go. So what are you going to do? You have to make a choice - which is fabulous and infinitely better (to me) than just chopping it out of deep rough.
Well, that's my off the cuff take which might be slightly helpful to those who haven't spent too much time tangling with that type of playability.
Rich, yes D.R. did spend a great deal of time incorporating wire grass into many of his courses. It is a plant which is, of course, native to the area and makes playing the course more interesting - as well as more pleasing aesthetically for most people. Some people prefer wall to wall greenery - so be it. It does jut out into the fairway on various holes (3, 8, 10 and 12).
As far as calling the use of it on the course "stupid", are you sure that's how you want to characterize it? You are entitled to think of it that way. But, I'd bear in mind that it is something Ross consciously employed a great deal.
As always, just my take for what it's worth.

[Adam Clayman]

The notion of penalty seems to be the issue. Marks questions appear marred in a limiting definition.

The randomness of the challenges is at the core of a quality design with a quality presentation and maintenance meld.

As i understand the old rough strewn version of the Deuce, it epitomized repetitive recovery. Yawn. Thank goodness for the great greens.

[RJ_Daley]

My question is if it is 'wiregrass' or 'lovegrass'.  My understanding is that both are of a bunch or clump growth characteristic, but lovegrass grows significantly taller and more dense than wire grass.  Is that correct?  I understand the Mike Strantz and Forrest Fezler planted lovegrass around Tobacco Road just up the highway from Pinehurst.  I got into that a few times, and it seems more hack it to anywhere that is out of it, than able to play a shot with a hope of going somewhere in particular.  

Lovegrass:



Wiregrass:


What do you say about this, Chris?

[Rich Goodale]

Well, it's a worthwhile thing to hold the sacred cows held up to scrutiny - as long as it is approached in a properly inquisitive manner. If such a sacred cow really is great then it will stand up to the analysis.
I guess there is a small minority who aren't keen on the restored version. Certainly, they are entitled to their own take on the matter. The majority (including myself) think it is an enormous improvement. Craig was exactly right in speaking of the restored angles of play with the fairway width. Going off the fairways is an adventure (as it should be) which IMHO is a light year better than regular or deep rough. There is a lot of art required from the player once they are in those areas. Sure it's possible you may be closer to the hole - but you still have to hit that shot off those wonderfully unpredictable areas. The best way to deal with them is...not to hit it on there in the first place. If you are on "clean" sandy areas or pine straw it is not such an easy shot. It's slightly disorienting. I've been hitting off sandy and wire grass patches for decades and you just don't get up there and swing it like you do on the fairway. You've got to get your footing right for starters - and I'm surprised how many don't get settled in properly - a little like you would in a regular bunker. After that you've got to "sweep" it a little differently than you ordinarily would from the fairway. You want to make really sure you are not hitting off a root as well. It's game over for a long time if you hit a root full speed. I could go on, but all in all its a different kind of shot - the swing is a little different and that difference makes for some wayward shots - even from talented players. You have to be especially focused to pull it off. It helps to be experienced as well - but even then those shots are almost always singular - there's usually at least some minor differences.
Hitting into wire grass is not like being in ankle deep rough. There is virtually zero art in the latter which is one of the reasons I despise it. If you are in the random wiregrass which is spaced out and not all clumped together then you are going to have varying degrees of playability. Most of the time you will be able to bend your shot near or even on the green. You rarely have a 100% no go. So what are you going to do? You have to make a choice - which is fabulous and infinitely better (to me) than just chopping it out of deep rough.
Well, that's my off the cuff take which might be slightly helpful to those who haven't spent too much time tangling with that type of playability.
Rich, yes D.R. did spend a great deal of time incorporating wire grass into many of his courses. It is a plant which is, of course, native to the area and makes playing the course more interesting - as well as more pleasing aesthetically for most people. Some people prefer wall to wall greenery - so be it. It does jut out into the fairway on various holes (3, 8, 10 and 12).
As far as calling the use of it on the course "stupid", are you sure that's how you want to characterize it? You are entitled to think of it that way. But, I'd bear in mind that it is something Ross consciously employed a great deal.
As always, just my take for what it's worth.

Chris, my use of the word "stupid" was in the spirit of many previous discussions on this forum regarding "stupid" trees.  I fully agree with you that waste areas and native vegetation are far superior to thick rough (in fact anything is superior to thick rough, even wall to wall cart paths, but that is another matter....).  What I do not personally like is native vegetation carefully placed and regularly pruned AND stuck in the middle of (usually, unless you are on true linksland) non-native bunkers.  But to each his or her own.  As to Pinehurst, it's been over 25 years since I've been there, so I'm hardly an expert on what the course (and the wire grass) looks like today.  Pictures, anybody?  Please?

Rich

[Chris Buie]

Hi RJ. Good questions. Are those photos of No. 2 Course? I bet not. I can tell you for sure that kind of clumping is not what they are going for on No. 2. What they are doing at other courses is a different topic, is it not?
But how that is going to be worked on No. 2 is a great question. How they render that is very important. Consider this photo:



It's going to be a challenge to play a good shot from there - but if you pull off a very good stroke you are still in the hole. That's very different from just being dead. Some shots you may not be given much to work with - but you are usually going to be given something to work with. Ross wanted to give you a chance to redeem yourself rather than just punishing you. Very protestant. You'll have to be creative and pull off something very good though. But that's just desserts for hitting it in there. It won't be predictable/bland/unadventurous.
Regarding the different kinds of grasses I'm not a horticulturist. I had some friends in college who could go into great detail about different kinds of grasses but I don't know too much about that. As far as No. 2 goes, my understanding is that they are using wire grass mainly. I think they are going for interesting playability. I would imagine they would end up with some areas which are less congenial than others but do you think zero playability is what Ross or Coore/Crenshaw would be after? Certainly not.
They will have to give the matter consideration. If anyone is not pleased with what they are doing then good luck to you is all I'll say.

Hi Rich, yes what you were saying makes sense in that context. I didn't think you meant it how it first looked to me. I agree with you that how it's presented is important. A non-natural pruned look that's not well placed is not appealing to me either. So they've got their work cut out presenting it well. They will. It will take some time and everything is not going to be perfect all the time - but they will do it really well. I have confidence in the ultimate outcome.
Gotta run. More fun to play this time of day because no one's in our way. There's little doubt I'll be exploring some native areas. Still, it's the best game going whether I'm hitting it well or not.

[Ben Sims]

Just got off the phone with a friend.  He was the captain of our golf team at the USAF Academy, and he had a reunion this weekend at Pinehurst with a bunch of dudes from the golf team.  All of them--save the team manager--are current handicaps in the +1 to -3 range, and all played D1 golf.  I asked his opinion of #2.  Here's what he said

[paraphrased]

"We don't even have to talk about the greens.  From 40 yards and in, it is phenomenal.  It is in the top 2 or 3 sets of greens I've ever seen (he's played a bunch of really good courses).  I felt like I was back at Old Mac on a bunch of holes from 40 and in.  I wish they had fescue like Bandon around the greens.  

I never saw it pre-reno, but I wish I had.  I think they have done the opposite of what they wanted to do with the sand areas.  All of us found it pretty easy to hit out of.  In fact, I don't think any of the 11 of us had any issues getting a ball out of the sandy areas, and I had one lie out of 8 that was affected by the tall grass.  But our team manager, who is a 10 handicap, was in the waste about 8-10 times as well and he had a lot of issues getting the ball out.  I think they have made the course easier for the good golfers and harder for the higher handicaps.  Bottom line, a bunch of good golfers that don't play much anymore all shot between 73 and 78 from the tips on a US Open course.  It maybe too easy for an Open.

I think that the other 51 weeks of the year that it isn't the US Open, they could just control the rough to something that the higher cap guys can handle, and then for the Open, they can have typical Open rough.  But that sand is tough for not-so-good guys and the rest of us were spinning the ball out of it.

I trust my buddy Tim, he has very good taste and has played all the greats.  Now keep in mind this is just food for thought and a fun thread.  I love the idea of the reno at PH #2 and can't wait to see it.  But I thought the treehouse would like the criticisms of an avid golfer that isn't a participant here at GCA.  Do you think his opinion has merit about the course being harder now for higher 'cap golfers and easier for better golfers?

[RJ_Daley]

Chris, that photo does seem to me to be more what I think your vision of how it should play and present itself.  One can see there are some more thick and heavy clumps strewn about, but more of that wiregrass in the photo seems to offer a chance to play on and not be dead with only a hack out to anywhere.  

My early visits to Tobacco Road and having Forrest and Strantz describe on GCA.com (IIRC) how they would go out on the site with pots of 'lovegrass' and place them in their potted clumps here and there testing and looking for just the right place to plant them, more in an ornamental vane than in this seemingly randomness that C&C seem to be going for as seen in your photo.  

But, I am left wondering either way (with longer more ornamental and perhaps more penalizing lovegrass, or an agressively growing wiregrass) if there is a specific maintenance treatment that must be used to maintain the wiregrass in that sweet spot of randomness with the decent chance of some sort of playability and advancement, as opposed to just dead every time the ball gets in there.  

[RJ_Daley]

Ben, did your friends happen to say how they played their ball in those waste areas, as a hazard and not ground club, or otherwise?  Wow, if they played it as a hazard, it would make the Dustin Johnson Whistling Straits controversy look like a game of simple simon. 

They allowed grounding of the club at TOC Kiawah.  But, what if they didn't at Pinehurst 2, if that is even possible to define and have effective rulings on the grey areas...?

[Chip Gaskins]

in reality, can many of us, aim and hit, certain parts of the fairway?  don't most of us aim right down the middle (which gives us the most margin of error in either direction) and try to hit it there?  maybe ben crenshaw can aim to the exact spot on the fairway and hit it, but for most golfers its a bit of hit and hope.  and as soon as you can't control the end result of your tee shot, isn't a lot of this strategy stuff sort of esoteric?

[Ben Sims]

Ben, did your friends happen to say how they played their ball in those waste areas, as a hazard and not ground club, or otherwise?  Wow, if they played it as a hazard, it would make the Dustin Johnson Whistling Straits controversy look like a game of simple simon. 

They allowed grounding of the club at TOC Kiawah.  But, what if they didn't at Pinehurst 2, if that is even possible to define and have effective rulings on the grey areas...?

Hmm, not sure I like that.  You can ground a club in rough, why wouldn't you be able to in a sandy waste?  I didn't ask, but I'm sure that they played it as waste.  Unless in a bunker of course. 

[RJ_Daley]

Ben, I haven't seen the C&C reno-resto myself and just relying on photos.  I'm not sure it would be possible, but what if they did go out and redline the significant waste areas at the duece, and tell them they can't ground in those areas?  Would that significantly have effected the ease you mention these top player friends of yours seemed to glide around 'the duece?'   And, I'm not suggesting they should do this... just wondering if that would be a significant balance to the notion a USOpen would be a birdie fest if as easy to extricate from those areas as your friends describe. 

[Craig Disher]

As I said earlier, the waste areas need to grow in for a year or two before we'll see their true effect on play. The last time I played 2 was in May and many of the waste areas were still mostly hard sand with small, widely scattered clumps of wire grass. Chris's photo shows the little sagging clumps of it (recently planted I assume) and a lot of stray weeds and rye grass. As the waste areas become starved for water, the wire grass will take over and the extraneous vegetation will die out - or so I've been told.  Wire grass is the native ground cover and - again, what I've been told - is well adapted to a pine forest environment.

Chip - doubling the fairway width will still offer more options for more players. That sounds more interesting than having to stripe the ball on every hole. With 50 yards of fairway width, a misdirected drive might wind up out of position with a more challenging approach rather than sunk in ankle-deep bermuda.

[Peter Pallotta]

Nice thread.  It reminds me of the many arguments for, justifications of, and judgements on restorations that I've read about on here over the years. So many aesthetic, philosophical, playability, historical and financial rationales for restorations. Are any of these justified - or should I say, necessary?  Do restorations even need to be supportable; do they ever need to be defended? I have a feeling that maybe the most basic and honest answer to the question "why restore" is "because".

Peter

[Ben Sims]

This is an interesting thread because the overwhelming majority of folks that have written about the reno of #2, have praised the reno of #2.  It's as universal in appeal as was Oakmont's rebirth.  I think it makes the the golf course orders of magnitude more appealing for the 99.94% of the time it's not hosting the US Open.  But the unfortunate aspect is that for the majority of golfers, the success of this reno will be based on the 0.06% of the time that it does host an Open.  And for the tenets of this renovation to take hold around golf, the players and commentators during the Open must be positive.  After some guys get what they receive as an unfair lies, we'll see how positive that press can be.

[Bart Bradley]

What if the restoration was not an all or nothing proposition?  What if there were still some areas of judiciously placed rough?  What if some portions of the sandy waste were more heavily planted?  Wouldn't that have created MORE variety?

What I worry about is that the course seems unbalanced...perhaps that was the problem before and now the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction?

The course is certainly more visually appealing after the restoration.  No question.

Bart

[Mike_Young]

Just got off the phone with a friend.  He was the captain of our golf team at the USAF Academy, and he had a reunion this weekend at Pinehurst with a bunch of dudes from the golf team.  All of them--save the team manager--are current handicaps in the +1 to -3 range, and all played D1 golf.  I asked his opinion of #2.  Here's what he said

[paraphrased]

"We don't even have to talk about the greens.  From 40 yards and in, it is phenomenal.  It is in the top 2 or 3 sets of greens I've ever seen (he's played a bunch of really good courses).  I felt like I was back at Old Mac on a bunch of holes from 40 and in.  I wish they had fescue like Bandon around the greens.  

I never saw it pre-reno, but I wish I had.  I think they have done the opposite of what they wanted to do with the sand areas.  All of us found it pretty easy to hit out of.  In fact, I don't think any of the 11 of us had any issues getting a ball out of the sandy areas, and I had one lie out of 8 that was affected by the tall grass.  But our team manager, who is a 10 handicap, was in the waste about 8-10 times as well and he had a lot of issues getting the ball out.  I think they have made the course easier for the good golfers and harder for the higher handicaps.  Bottom line, a bunch of good golfers that don't play much anymore all shot between 73 and 78 from the tips on a US Open course.  It maybe too easy for an Open.

I think that the other 51 weeks of the year that it isn't the US Open, they could just control the rough to something that the higher cap guys can handle, and then for the Open, they can have typical Open rough.  But that sand is tough for not-so-good guys and the rest of us were spinning the ball out of it.

I trust my buddy Tim, he has very good taste and has played all the greats.  Now keep in mind this is just food for thought and a fun thread.  I love the idea of the reno at PH #2 and can't wait to see it.  But I thought the treehouse would like the criticisms of an avid golfer that isn't a participant here at GCA.  Do you think his opinion has merit about the course being harder now for higher 'cap golfers and easier for better golfers?

Ben,
I have heard similar especially form women players...it will become more interesting as it matures...

[Sean_A]

The reno sounds fascinating.   In my experience of hard pack sand, most handicap golfers can't handle it.  I saw it at Yeamans, Kiawah and Tobacco Road.  Time and time again handicap players essentially skull shots out of the hard pan - so good recoveries for handicap players will I suspect be rare.  On the other hand, good players love this sort of lie as they can hit all ball.  Balanced against this is wider fairways which has to be a positive.  Bart may be right, perhaps there could have been some rough as it is (imo) generally easier for handicap players to recover from if kept at a reasonable height and grown a bit can cause the flat bellies problems.  Bottom line for me and this is a shame, is I think the success of this reno will depend on the two Opens held there rather than how it is received by the paying customers.  Far too much about golf is couched in the context of professionals. 

Ciao

[Chris Buie]

Interesting points all around. A nice debate is what Mark was after, I'm sure. He was just being provocative with the title to stir the pot a bit.
Ben, guys that don't play much shot 73-78 from the tips? That is surprising to me. Next time I get drafted in a money game (which I try to avoid) I'll be IMing you for a couple of phone numbers. 73 on No. 2 from the backs while not playing much? That's quite something.
Will it be too easy for the US Open seems to be the question. It's a good question. I suppose that is possible but I doubt that will be the case. All you got to do is roll the greens and tuck the pins a bit. That's if you are worried about the score. It was pretty entertaining watching the pros go for some of the dangerous areas where the flags were tucked for the previous Opens. Some of them said it was not fair. Actually, it was not such bright strategy on their part - most of the time anyway. On those greens (especially if they are hard) I just try to put in in the middle. I'm not aiming right at the flags too often on that course. Sometimes, but not too often - especially when they are placed near one of the enormous roll off areas.  Ross did intend it to be a thinking course - and designed it to reveal the integrity of one's strategy as well as ball striking ability.
Well, like I said, it's going to take a while for the wire grass to grow in just right. That's a challenge - and I still think they will ultimately get it right. Hopefully, people will be patient and let the old venerable get its sea legs back instead of being kind of shrill about the process.
That's a good point about the strategy Chip. The only people I know of who could hit it exactly where they wanted off the tee when they wanted to were Hogan and Moe Norman - maybe Trevino. I'm sure there were a few others - but not all that many. I would say that doesn't negate the strategy. It means if you do leave yourself the optimal angle of approach you're in great shape with the inverse being true in varying degrees of difficulty. So if you are a bit off direction you've still got a significantly better situation than someone who is more than a little out of place.
Well, it is something of an experiment - the course, having Opens back to back, etc. That is a good thing is it not? They could have stuck with bowling alley fairways and thick rough like most American Open courses do. But they have struck off in a worthy direction, I'd say. Some will not be so keen on it but I still say it's moving in a great direction and that's not just being nice. That is what I actually think. I've ladeled out plenty of criticism so I think if something is done well you'd want to be equally effusive in the opposite direction. I find it...interesting when people are more animated when they are criticizing something or someone than when they are expressing regard for such.
IMHO

[Mark Bourgeois]

Chris, thanks for catching and then advancing the spirit of the thread.

Actually, not only do I not really care about the opens -- *except* for how it may lead to permanently damaged presentation -- I'm only a little concerned about scoring. They'll make it crazy long and shine the greens and then paraphrasing Chip it will become a game of hit it *here* or else. Chip's point indirectly supports my argument: isn't the point of the design to let every class of golfer enjoy a round while challenging the golfer looking to post a score?

I'm more interested/concerned in/about the intrinsic playability of the waste areas for multiple classes of golfers: Ben's anecdote shows it could be easier for good golfers and harder for worse. Opposite of ideal!

Yes, Craig, let's wait for the grow-in but it sounds like all that will do is make it as hard for the good as for the mediocre. 

The added width is great, great news. How does it interact with the other main change--what's the impact of width and waste acting together?

In carrying balls out to the waste areas, does it actually serve to narrow the course? (Wouldn't The Masters be harder if they eliminated the rough so balls could roll into the trees?)