Chris Buie's The Original Pinehurst No.3 is now posted under IMO

[Ran Morrissett]

In his fourth literary installment about Pinehurst, Chris Buie takes us on a magical mystery ride around the No.3.course, the dominant course at the resort for at least two decades.  Chris’s essay makes it is easy to understand why. It is draped over Pinehurst’s best land and Ross scattered great holes throughout including the Cathedral par 3 6th, the awe-inspiring par 5 8th and two rolling finishers. Ross used the sloping land to great effect: creating the blind approach shot at the 7th with its sunken, fall-away green and a battling side-slope across the long three shot seventeenth are but two prime examples. In my eyes, the fact that Ross opted (i.e. was forced) to build back-to-back par threes at 5 and 6 speaks volumes of the ground’s incessant movement. Had there been sustained flat stretches, I think that in 1906 he would have spaced the pars in a more conventional manner. Instead, he made an early show of an architect building the best holes that he could find regardless of the sequence of par.

One of the joys of Chris’s works is the way he transports the reader back to the time via period imagery and archaic prose. These two quotes from the day latch onto how different each hole was from the others. This is what was said in The American Golfer after the first nine opened in 1907:

From the standpoint of the picturesque the new nine-hole course opened for play last season and which is now in excellent condition, is probably the most attractive in the south and rarely equalled anywhere. From the stretching first to the long ninth, each and every hole is radically different, combining down hill approaches, up hill drives, hidden holes, undulating fair green, water hazards, gentle rises and distinct variety in the way of natural hazards. The additional nine holes which have been laid out on a connecting loop, promise to be fully as attractive.

The now defunct Pinehurst Outlook added:

Special interest centers in the new course which was generally enjoyed last season and which is now one of the most interesting, varied and picturesque courses in the south; its special charm being the fact that no two holes are alike.

No doubt about it: diversity of challenge abounded thanks to Ross’s imaginative use of the rolling topography. For perspective, in 1910 Mackenzie, Tillinghast, Flynn, Thomas et al hadn’t yet cranked things up but Ross was off to the races. Also, from the golfer’s perspective, the ground game demanded at No. 3 must have provided the perfect foil to the turtleback greens that Ross concocted for No.2 in the 1930s. What a one-two combo those two courses must have been!

According to Chris, No. 3’s  two nines were initially intended to be just that – two nine hole loops rather than one eighteen hole course. The thought was that guests might prefer a quick nine hole hit from time to time (having just arrived, having already played eighteen, etc.) and why not give them two handsome choices? Though the concept for two nine hole loops didn’t stick Chris cites the concept as an example of Pinehurst pushing the envelope to best provide for its guests. Pinehurst was the prime resort in the nation at the time and charted its own path. It led; others followed.

Pinehurst No.3 was broken-up only after Ross’s death. While 10 holes are still in play at No. 3 the other 8 were siphoned off for the newly created No. 5. However, Chris is quick to point out that ~90% of the playing corridors are still intact this day. Chris muses that at a propitious time why not properly restore such a fine and noted course that Ross devoted plenty of personal time and attention to over three plus decades. As they presently stand, No. 3 and No. 5 don’t make any highlight reels. Why not restore No. 3’s grandeur/collection of standout holes and settle for 9 holes at Course No. 5? Chris's map of overlapping routings from today and yesteryear encourage the concept of providing players with 27 holes of distinction versus 36 of a lesser ilk. Might reducing the existing offering by nine holes actually accelerate the building of Course No.9 by Coore & Crenshaw?! Perhaps just a pipe dream   but ... that’s OK too! Don Quixote is one of the most fascinating characters in literature precisely BECAUSE he could dream big and honorably. Be it with Overhills or Pinehurst No. 3, Chris advocates for what is right and best without ulterior motivation.

All matter of good things have happened in the greater Pinehurst area over the past six years. It started when Coore & Crenshaw rolled into town for Dormie, which helped lead to work at No. 2 that in turn prompted Mid Pines to undertake its current sterling restoration. A visiting friend from Australia shrewdly observed that Pinehurst might soon be underrated as a golf destination because of all this fine ongoing work that is available to the public. Maybe Pinehurst No. 9 is next or perhaps Chris gets his wish and sees No. 3 brought back to its former glory? No matter, nothing can diminish the importance of understanding just how good this Ross course once was.

Best,

[Joel_Stewart]

Chris muses that at a propitious time why not properly restore such a fine and noted course that Ross devoted plenty of personal time and attention to over three plus decades. As they presently stand, No. 3 and No. 5 don’t make any highlight reels. Why not restore No. 3’s grandeur/collection of standout holes and settle for 9 holes at Course No. 5? Best,

Nice writing Chris.  Is the restoration of #3 being considered?

[Thomas Dai]

Splendid. Well done.

All the best

[Chris Buie]

Thanks much Joel and Thomas.
Joel, the answer to your question is...not yet. I wouldn't think now should be the point on the timeline when a serious consideration of that should be going on. In addition to running a vast business the concentration is on seeing through the No. 2 project. Also there is a huge amount of complex planning for the back to back Opens which will be held next year.
This essay is just planting a seed for future considerations. Now is not the time for a resto - but at some indeterminate point in the future it could be a very good idea. The resort is going to be around for a many years. The long term question is: which direction shall we move toward?
As I said in the essay, I think the optimal way forward is to look back. What Ross et al. achieved over the course of four decades was one of golf's supreme masterworks. Actually, I personally think that elaborate achievement transcends sport and is an example of serious cultural value in a broader sense. IMHO there's no need to improve upon what was done there. Merely reinstating it in a fitting manner (à la No. 2) would place the resort back on the pedestal where it belongs.
Well, that's what I think. If there's a better long term path for the resort to follow feel free to chime in.

[hhuffines]

Chris, as always, thank you for your research and helping me better understand the history down there.  My personal preference would be to finish #9, restore #3, and then make some changes to #4. 

[Jud_T]

I would hope that as the success of the #2 project is appreciated over time and the economy eventually recovers fully that this would lead naturally to the restoration of the other original courses.  The powers that be have to know that the lure of the resort proper would be dramatically enhanced if it was more than one-timers paying up to notch #2 on their belt with a couple rounds on 4,7 & 8 thrown in for good measure.  This combined with other competition in the area from the newly renovated Mid-Pines, Pine Needles and Dormie would seem to lead to a rather obvious long-term business plan at Pinehurst Resort IMHO.  Great work as per usual Chris.

[PCCraig]

Wonderful stuff as always Chris!!

[Chris Buie]

Thanks Jud and Pat.
Hart, I would think either building No. 9 or refurbing No. 1 would be the most viable/practical next steps. They could provide worthwhile companion pieces to No. 2 for the connoisseurs. My understanding is that the owner (who is doing a good job) was quite keen to build No. 9 but it would have been a bit too much of a stretch at the time for economic reasons. I could be not exactly right about that - but that's my understanding.
Reinstating No. 3 would be far more complicated than working on No. 1 or No. 9. There are several reasons for that. One of the reasons is (believe it or not) No. 5 is a very popular course for the current crop of members. The majority don't even realize No. 5 is part of the original No. 3 - or how very fine that course was. Taking that apart at this point is just not that practical. However, at some point in the future it would be worth bold and dramatic action. I thought it might be good to put the idea out there now - way in advance - so that when a more opportune time comes it is not missed.

What interests me most is the overall long term evolution of the resort. And as I said in the essay I think the best idea - by far - is to reinstate Ross. What was achieved there with the four courses woven together was one of golf's most shining moments. The early establishment was staggeringly impressive. The entire affair was something else altogether. I think the current establishment is very keen to do handle matters in the best way possible. As Jud indicated, in the long run there is the opportunity to do something extraordinary. I would say it's an opportunity to present something that elevates the culture. There's more than enough uninspiring and mediocre and sub-mediocre stuff floating around in American culture. A healthy culture needs examples of what people at their best can achieve. As individuals we need to be reminded of the lofty and incredibly impressive way things can be when they come together properly. That goes far in potently stimulating each of us be better people and not the lesser people we can turn into.
It's a long journey I'm advocating and these things don't happen quickly or easily or all at one time. But ultimately the overall tableau can reach that rarified level that is not entirely easy to describe but very easy to sense and be affected by.
Well, something like that.

[Jaeger Kovich]

Chris - Good stuff. The golf history stuff always interests me, but your way of making people want to "do the right thing" is pretty awesome... Maybe your next piece should be about the Tuft's Archives itself.

Here, Here to no more "uninspiring and mediocre and sub-mediocre stuff floating around"!

J

[hhuffines]

I thought they just worked on #1, or was that just green resurfacing?

[Chris Buie]

Thanks Jaeger. You are right about the Tufts Archives itself being worthy of a study. I think Ran wants to interview the director Audrey Moriarty when it gets a little closer to the Opens. She and a fellow who works there named John Root are the experts about that unique place. They do a great job there and it is definitely worthy of being supported.
http://www.tuftsarchives.org/donate-now-.html

Hart, they re-did the greens with the new bermuda and added a hole so that the area of the par-3 18th could be incorporated as part of an elaborate short game area. Practicing your short game in front of the veranda there is one of the better ways you can spend a couple of hours on a sunny afternoon. I like the fact that people are doing the same thing in the same place that they were a century ago.

[Norbert P]

   A terrificly written and fascinating report, Chris.  Thanks.     You write that #3 was used for half of the North-South Open.  I assume this was in a rotation and not in a composite form with #2.  

   Onward Rocinante' !

http://www.pinehurst.com/north-south-mens.php

[Chris Buie]

Slag, yes I imagine the spirited jousting will continue!
Regarding a composite, they generally played the first two rounds strictly on No. 3 and the last two on No. 2. Although the courses were/are only the distance of a solid driver apart from each other they have quite a contrast in style and terrain. As Ran said, they complimented each particularly well. And the different shadings of style, challenge and terrain among the four courses was, of course, a key to what made the resort what it was.

Here's some No. 3/North-South Open (rather than N-S Amateur) stuff:






Here's a somewhat interesting bit which tells you about how No. 3 was regarded before No. 2 acquired those diabolical grass green complexes. The reigning (British) Open champion wades ashore for a two round match with the best local talent. For a couple of decades that meant Donald's brother Alex (who had won the U.S. Open). Until his design business went into high gear it was usually Donald who was the Sancho Panza helping him defend the hometown honor.
The British Open champion has a match with the U.S. Open champion at Pinehurst...and both rounds are played on No. 3. Hmm, should have worked that into the essay. That probably makes the point about the regard of No. 3 at its height better than anything else.

[Craig Disher]

Chris,
Do you know why #3 was split up rather than left intact and #5 constructed around #3's perimeter? If the goal was to add housing, there certainly was enough space within the interior of #3 to accommodate it without altering the course at all. All the space around its edge would have easily allowed for a new course and housing.  Maybe the answer is in Mandell's book but mine is packed away at the moment.

Even with the misplaced condos (the 3rd hole is perhaps the worst) and resort-style maintenance, the remaining holes are a lot of fun and far better than the new ones

[Chris Buie]

Craig, I can't say for sure what the reasoning was behind the splitting of the course. They must have thought it would be a good move economically. It's pretty clear that is the main reason they neutered Ross's bunkers on No. 2. It's possible they may have thought having five courses instead of four was a better offering for members and guests, as well.
 
I agree with your take on the current playability. I find playing the course as it is pretty much sufficiently enjoyable. I can't recommend it as a course you'd play on a rare visit - unless you had some extra time and were particularly keen on Ross designs. What it was would not be evident and obvious if you played it now. You'd have to reflect on it a while to see that what he did there was truly formidable.

Here's a photo comparison (one from the Tufts Archives) which may give you an idea of the difference between now and then. This is the original 11th (today's 4th).

[Chris Buie]

One would think what is pictured below would speak for itself. But, obviously, that is not the case. The point with the work on this tract has been missed.

What is the point?

No. 3 could rise to the category of essential plays in the area.

That's pretty significant, is it not?

If those extremely talented people who have been applying their world class artistry to Mid Pines were given an entirely free hand to do as they saw fit with this course then No. 3 would jump into that elevated category.

Anybody think it's ok to just let that opportunity pass by?

For practical reasons there is some distance between now and a full realization (apotheosis) of what it could be. But let's be really clear about what it could be. Not to have that happen at some point in the future would not be the best way to go.

The image below is scrollable.