[Richard_Mandell]

I just finished a complete re-write, re-design, and update of my 2007 Pinehurst book, which sold out of its 2,500 run a few years ago.  Thank you very much to many of you GCA faithful for helping with that.  The new book is called The Legendary Evolution of Pinehurst. It is now expanded to 424 pages with an extra forty-five pages including a new final chapter chronicling the restorations of Pinehurst No. 2 and Mid Pines, the evolution of The Dormie Club and other advances in recent times.  Some of the length comes from 112 never-before-seen images recently uncovered from the Tufts Archives.  Here is one of my favorites which shows the second green of No. 2 in 1936 (from behind).  Note the large mound that is at the front right corner of the putting surface for those that think thee weren't dramatic slopes in Ross' greens back then:

The original epilogue was kept in place and acted as a jumping off point for the new chapter because it seemed like a perfect lead-in to all the new work completed since the first book.  In addition, a new epilogue as well as an updated afterword is included, all in an attempt to put some historical perspective on what was done these past six years in the Sandhills.  

The work at No. 2, Mid Pines, and Dormie puts the area in a true positive direction for the first time after years of floundering, golf architecture-wise. The new work can also be looked upon as leading-edge regarding the rest of the industry and the general public when it comes down to the reduction of maintained turf resulting in strategic interest, not just regarding maintenance and costs.

So I ask, is the most critical event for the future of the golf industry in America the professionals' acceptance of what they find at No. 2 next June?  What are the odds that the pros will absolutely despise what they see at the Opens?  

That asked, I am also curious to hear if anyone feels there is a difference in how the industry, as well as the professional golfer, will react to the work at No. 2 and Mid Pines as opposed to similar work that was done previously, without the exposure?   Does anyone feel it is as critical to the future of the golf business as I do, even though we are talking about high-end private and resort golf courses in these examples?  

One of the reasons for re-doing the book was to focus on the positive direction of the work at these places and how it should steer others in the industry.  The work at No. 2 as well as Mid Pines and Dormie for that matter all lead the golf industry (in my eyes) in the right direction, regardless of whether the financial gains in approaching such efforts are ever re-directed to the end user, the golfer.  

For years, the prototypical golf course flashed on TV to the world was of Augusta National as well as numerous others following suit for the U. S. Open, PGA Championship, and basic run-of-the-mill PGA Tour events as well. Now there will be an alternative next June when the world sees No. 2.

We can only hope and pray that the world receives the new-look as positive and clubs that have a maintenance budget of less than $800,000 can reduce costs while providing an even better golf experience.  It would be nice to see.  I'm afraid that clubs over that threshold may not want to see the light of day on this issue and continue to chase perfection.

Ran has been pushing me to get more active in GCA the past few years and so what better opportunity but to try to get you guys to buy a book.  I hope he appreciates my efforts here (just kidding).  

Ben Crenshaw was gracious enough to provide an introduction to The Legendary Evolution of Pinehurst.  In addition to also interviewing Ben, Bill Coore was as good as it gets and Kyle Franz was a real treat as he broke his construction process down to such fundamental basics which means some parts of the new chapter get pretty detailed.

Of particular interest to my fellow GCAers will be the update on Southern Pines Golf Club.  Over the years, Chris Buie (as well as some others on this discussion board) has been feeding me info as he discovered it.  In addition, Michael Miller allowed me use of three of his new Pinehurst No. 2 images for the book, which gives it an additional quality that the first book did not have.  Here is one I m particularly fond of called The Imposing and Very Penal Bunker at #16:

Nonetheless, the book retails for $75.00 but being in the Christmas spirit, I want to offer the book to GCA members for the original price of $65.00 until the end of the year.  The book  is available by visiting my website, www.golf-architecture.com or www.teliotpress.com. But if you want the discounted price, please  include the coupon code "1895" when ordering.

[Sean_Tully]

Richard- Well done on the book, again!

Any other big game changers in the photos? Like bunker shapes or styles?
Still trying to put the Seminole bunkers  into some kind of context and compare against other courses that Ross did from that same period?

Tully

[Richard_Mandell]

There are many pictures from the 1935 renovation of No. 2 by Ross which clearly shows the flashing.  Bunker shapes are almost like jigsaw puzzle pieces, far from the typical that most associate with Ross. That was evident in the first book and clearly backs up what C & C did a few years ago.  The new book has more of the same.  More interesting, though, is a photo from December 1948 (eight months after Ross' death) that shows how Henson Maples had already altered the bunker faces to be more grass-faced.

[ward peyronnin]

Rich I tried to use code and it didn't calculate discount

With your erudition and native experience I really covet this book; let me know.

WardP  

[Paul Gray]

Richard,

You've done your bit, time for other to do theirs.

Four days of puzzled looks in the clubhouse then in June while this crashing bore bangs on about how great the course is! But I only half joke. There's a big industry out there still regurgitating the same old crap. We that supposedly "get it" need to be shouting loudly.

[Adam Clayman]

As much as it should, If Shinneythingy in '04 didn't change the world, when Retief aimed away from the hole, nothing will.

Good luck on your book sales.

[JESII]

We can only hope and pray that the world receives the new-look as positive and clubs that have a maintenance budget of less than $800,000 can reduce costs while providing an even better golf experience.  It would be nice to see.  I'm afraid that clubs over that threshold may not want to see the light of day on this issue and continue to chase perfection.

Richard,

Thanks for the info on the book. Looking forward to getting into it.



I'm curious about the quote above in context with the thread title. I'm assuming this is where you want the conversation to go...other than book orders...

I'm not very familiar with the areas golf courses, and truthfully don't know exactly what has been done to Pinehurst, but I'd be intrigued to get into the conversation about what "message" could be sent by the presentation of #2 next summer. Let's assume I know a restoration of sorts was completed with the result being wall-to-wall fairways bordered by sandy waste areas in many (all?) cases.

How does this promote a lower maintenance budget initiative?

It would seem to re-create the strategic value of the golf course and help prove the fallacy (if that's possible) of rough adding difficulty to a course. It would also seem likely to highlight the bouncing and running golf ball as the most interesting way to play the game even if it does mean you'll get bad bounces...perhaps because it means you'll get bad bounces!?!

In truth, I see tremendous potential for misapplying the presentation at courses all across the country. What has it cost Pinehurst in the last 5 or 10 years to get this restoration completed?

[Thomas Dai]

Firstly, every success to you Richard with you book.

Secondly, an aspect I'm looking forward to next June is seeing the men and the women playing back-to-back weeks on the same course. I hope we receive accurate information on how the courses are set up for each, ie length of holes, tee shot angles, speed of greens etc. It will also be interesting to see how the course holds up to such sustained high level play over two weeks as sometimes unkind comments are made along the lines of 'you can't set-up a course like that for more than one week'. Well, let's see what happens in June, weather conditions permitting. If deemed a success, this June might set an interesting precedent for other future back-to-back events.

All the best

[Richard_Mandell]

Guys,

On the issue of the coupon code, for some reason the code worked fine on Friday but not on Monday, nor on Tuesday.  But we just got it back so go ahead and try to purchase the book again using the code. For those of you who already purchased the book without getting the code, I will refund you back ten dollars.

On where I want the conversation to go, other than selling books, the lower maintenance initiative will come in less labor, chemicals, etc. in rough areas (as long as the net is less maintained turf acreage in the process) and making sure that we don't re-apply the entire labor portion of things to weeding these natural areas too much.  When one looks at these out of play areas on No. 2 (since the work was completed), there are a lot of weedy plants out there that could take a great amount of effort to eradicate on a regular basis.  The trick is not to go ahead and do that.

But in addition to lowering labor, another element of the equation is to actually LOWER OUR EXPECTATIONS.  In other words, live with those weeds.  They don't really affect playability any more than Bermuda rough did.  In fact, there is a better chance of finding a recoverable lie in current conditions 67% of the time than before, when you would 100% of the time find yourself in Bermuda rough.

Regarding strategy, shotmaking, rub of the green, etc. that No. 2 presents (as well as other places following this model), that is all a great and positive by-product of the effort in reducing the maintained rough.  It is a "conversation starter" for those who are used to the old runway strategy that so many courses lined with rough along each hole provide.  In other words, let the possibility of money savings open the door and then let everyone realize how fun, challenging, and interesting these new conditions can be.  Money talks much quicker to the stubborn and those set in their ways than a completely different approach to golf course strategy would, especially when you rarely see the new approach on TV.

To me, that is what is so great about this movement (so to speak).  Hopefully, over time, the benefits beyond money (interesting golf architecture) will begin to reveal themselves to the masses (in the industry and out).

Jim,  regarding your example of a "restoration of sorts was completed with the result being wall-to-wall fairways bordered by sandy waste areas in many (all?) cases.",  it may promote a lower-budget initiative if the acreage of maintained turf was reduced.  But if turf was added in order to provide wider fairways, than there would not be a lower budget result. If a course was to make that effort, then they would be focusing more on the playability aspect, which, to me, would still be a step in the right direction.

The restoration work occurred in a small window of time from March of 2010 with the course still open for the most part.  Only until November of that year did the course completely shut down and then it re-opened on March 3, 2011. Regarding costs, there was no specific price tag put on the project but I would venture to guess it was less than $1,000,000.

We that supposedly do "get it" do need to be shouting loudly, correct (provided we do genuinely "get it"). But any idea, good or bad, has great potential for misapplying the presentation.

[Jason Topp]

Having played Pinehurst No. 2 for the first time this fall, I do believe that next June contains the potential for significant change in the industry - not so much because of the way the course plays but because of how interesting the course will look on television.  I suspect those waste areas will appear so much more interesting than the walls of rough that existed before.  

I believe significant change has already occured on a national basis regarding trees, a preference for firm and fast, and a corresponding tolerance for brown if it results in a firm and fast course rather than a wet sloppy one.  Short hitters such as me appreciate the extra roll.  Better players appreciate the challenges to all aspects of the game.  High handicaps do not notice the difficulties presented by such conditions so much because they apply to shots around the green and iron play which is a challenge anyway.

However - I have seen that shift in attitude as more prevalant at the $800K+ maintenence locations rather than at lower cost facilities.  At the higher end facilities, such preferences do not appear to lead to lower maintenence costs.  To the contrary, they might increase costs.  The product is just better.

I have always thought one of the easiest things courses with lower maintenence budgets could do, that would be well received by customers and decrease costs is to stop watering the rough.  At a minimum, such a change reduces water and mowing costs. Maybe the example of Pinehurst will help.

[Morgan Clawson]

"So I ask, is the most critical event for the future of the golf industry in America the professionals' acceptance of what they find at No. 2 next June?  What are the odds that the pros will absolutely despise what they see at the Opens? "

I really can't see much impact from the pros because they've been trained not to say anything negative about the courses they play.  I think you will probably get more positive statements from the broadcasters.

But, I think the real impact will be with the marshals and other volunteers, many of whom will be club members throughout the area. You have to think that some of those guys will look at the Pinehurst work and think that it's the right thing to do for their club too. I would hope that there are a lot of clubs that will see the benefit in differentiation, adding strategy, and reducing maintenance costs.

Cory Lewis took a few of us on a quick tour of #2 during the Dixie Cup. I played #2 at least a decade ago. The bunkers and waste areas looked great, as did the tree removal. The fairways are still very wide in most places.  I had forgotten how severe the greens were. It really is a stunning course now.

Jason Topp - I wish I could hit the ball as short as you!

[Jerry Kluger]

I have to think that #2 will not be that much different for the championships than it is most other days except for how firm and fast they would like it to be.  It doesn't seem that they can narrow the fairways without having deep rough so what else can they do other than length and firmness of the greens. This will be a dramatic contrast when compared to what they did with Merion. 

[jim_lewis]

Richard:

Do you have copies available for sale at your office or other local outlets?

Jim

[jim_lewis]

I love #2 even more with the restoration by C&C. However, I fear that the thing I like most about the changes may be exactly what the pros won't like. I like the unpredictability of lies in the waste areas. They mess with the minds of players. When a player hits his ball into the waste area, I want him to be anxious about what lie he will find all the way during his walk to the ball. He may get lucky and have a relatively easy lie on hardpan, but he may have to waste at least half a shot getting the ball back in play. Most tour players, especially Americans, prefer fairness and predictability, which is usually found in thick, healthy, even rough.

Regarding the "weeds" in the waste areas. Bob Farren, Director of Golf Course Maintenance (or something like that), explains that a weed, by definition, is ANY plant that is not wanted. By his definition, the "weeds" in the waste areas are not weeds, and they have no plans to remove them. I suspect that the players, the gallery, and most viewers will still consider them unsightly weeds.

I just hope the commentators and reporters get it right.

[Richard_Mandell]

Jim,

I will have books at the office later this afternoon so just give me a call.  I do agree with your assessment of No. 2.  On the weed end of things, I am afraid that the public will not be so welcoming, but I am pretty confident Farren will have his crew do a big "weed sweep" a week or so before.

Jason Topp,  You are 100% on line with the idea of not watering the rough anymore.  Unfortunately with the way irrigation systems are, some places may not be able to isolate just the rough areas and if they quit watering parts of the rough, the areas that weren't isolated would still be watered, adding a bit of confusion to the delineation between rough areas left alone, watered rough areas, and fairways.

[RJ_Daley]

My wife says I have too many GCA books cluttering up one wall shelf now.  But, this one seems too good to pass up.  The code didn't work, but I included the code number in the 'add comment' section, for what it is worth.  No big issue, either way.  

On the issue of whether those 2 weeks might change the golf industry thinking, I'm going to wait to see what others say and try and form an opinion later.  

In a way; isn't "waiting to see what the others say" the essence of the hurdle to overcome in order to affect change.  

Who are 'the others', and what are they saying?

[Richard_Mandell]

RJ,

I don't know who the others are, you mentioned them. Maybe you can tell them what to say and move the whole process along much quicker?    Thanks for making me use one of those faces.

The books arrived Wednesday afternoon and everyone's order will go out today.  If anyone wants me to sign the book, let me know how you want me to do it as soon as possible.  You can just email me at richard@golf-architecture.com and spare everyone else the pain on this thread.

Also, the coupon code is working as of no, but apparently it comes and goes so if you do try to buy a book and use the code and it doesn't work, wait a bit or email us.

Thanks

[Josh Tarble]

I just wanted to chime in and say I received my copy yesterday.  I haven't had time to dig into it yet, but it's very well done with great imagery and very nicely printed.  An excellent addition for anyone's library.  And thank you to Richard for personalizing it. 

[Chris Buie]

I've just about finished reading through the part about the early years. Rich's presentation of that era is really well done. Best of luck with the book!

I fear that the thing I like most about the changes may be exactly what the pros won't like. I like the unpredictability of lies in the waste areas.

This will probably get a fairly extensive amount of ink this summer. I can understand how the range jockeys wouldn't be comfortable with something that is not completely predictable. However, the fairways are very wide - especially for a U.S. Open. If a pro hits it in there they either really bungled the shot or chose to bring those areas into play in order to get an advantage - and didn't pull it off.

Grappling with situations outside the comfort zone is part of what the U.S. Open is about. It will be interesting to see who gets fixated on chance being brought into the equation. Again, they need to remember they were give ample opportunity to hit it in the fairway and are in the native areas due to a really bad swing or an edgy strategic choice.

Like Jim, I greatly prefer No. 2 the way it is now. The course has extraordinary personality and the playability is endlessly fascinating. I just read through a lot of material written during the long evolution of the course. It really brought home the fact that Ross gave every aspect of it great consideration. Since he was given the luxury of working on it for decades he micro-calibrated this course exactly how he wanted it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()