Let's Pinehurst this sucker

[Brent Hutto]

I know what sandy, scruffy, unwatered, barely maintained bits of land look like in Pinehurst's climate. I live in a very slightly warmer version of the same.

The current "scruff" areas at #2 look exactly like a sandy vacant lot next to my office looked like about 12 months after it was cleared off down to the bare sand. So absent copious and careful labor to maintain it in that state, I also know what it would look like 12 months later then 12 months after that, then 12 months after that.

I'm not qualified to compare the numbers to run-of-the-mill thick Bermuda rough but the maintenance cost of all those acres of scruff will be substantial on an ongoing basis. Or else John K's prediction will be correct and a great deal of that will quickly become impenetrable weed-choked areas that the starter will tell everyone to treat as a lateral hazard.

Given that it will probably be a few years before I play there I hope the resort pours the required manpower into somehow permanently arresting the progression of that landscape, halting it at the second-full-season stage forever. That will be quite a trick though and it's no more "natural" than trimming a Bonsai tree to perpetually be 15" tall.

[Greg Tallman]

Brett,

Don't you think that saving the costs of 35 million gallons of water will afford them to look after the area. That is before you consider chemical and fertilizer savings. All those mower operators need something to do  now no?

Seems many are suggesting, with nothing more than contrarian views as support, that the resort will ignore the areas and let them grow over.

Why would they do that? What suggests they will?

[Gary Slatter]

Mike,

What do they find amusing?

The look.  As much as some of us may appreciate what has been done, most will not take the time to try and understand it.  Let's face it, if a lesser known club were to do such out of necessity it would not be viewed in the same light.  This is a one time thing ans I don't expect to see it catching on.  Supts will not let it or will vendors.  I actually don't expect Pinehurst to keep it for more than a few years.  Of coure it will be a subtle evolution and not a grand announcement

Agree 100%, many are liking the look! but most people who can afford to play there can't play well enough, and won't enjoy  getting that dusty.
Most of the fat bottomed clubs being sold wouldn't work too well off the hard pan nor from the native areas.

I heard a local Chocktaw chief called mid broadcast and they changed from "native areas" to "natural areas".

How expensive is it to Pinehurst a course?   Turn off the irrigation and drive carts in the rough, 12 months later you've got the look.

I can't imagine the board at Rosedale Golf Club allowing, C&C on the property.

Looking forward to final round, but really think the women are going to find it tough next week, they don't have the club head speed, nor are they tall enough to hit from the sandy vacant lot natural (?) areas.

[Mike_Young]

Brett,

Don't you think that saving the costs of 35 million gallons of water will afford them to look after the area. That is before you consider chemical and fertilizer savings. All those mower operators need something to do  now no?

Seems many are suggesting, with nothing more than contrarian views as support, that the resort will ignore the areas and let them grow over.

Why would they do that? What suggests they will?

Greg,
I think for most courses they could save the same amount of water by either planting common bermuda grass in the roughs or even a hybrid and then just not water it.  I don't mean to sound contrarian but an average course taking the same areas and planitng bermuda, mowing with a gang mower and not watering would work and you would not have the pine straw issues.  I love the look and I don't think the club will let it grow over but I do think it will take more work to maintain than if it were grass.  JMO....

[Grant Saunders]

Brett,

Don't you think that saving the costs of 35 million gallons of water will afford them to look after the area. That is before you consider chemical and fertilizer savings. All those mower operators need something to do  now no?

Seems many are suggesting, with nothing more than contrarian views as support, that the resort will ignore the areas and let them grow over.

Why would they do that? What suggests they will?

Perhaps they could have just started by simply withholding said fert and chemicals on the rough. Coupled with reducing the water (do we really need to remove heads? Is there some design flaw that inhibits reducing the run time or god forbid just turning them off) this would produce an inconsistent patchy type rough producing random lies and impacting recovery options.

I dont see such a radical example being a great selling point for the sustainable movement. If anything, it could have the opposite effect and scare people further away. A measured shift highlighting there is middle ground to be found, I believe, would be an easier sell.

[Jason Thurman]

Keith,

You 'hold' the green by running the ball onto it. Anything else would be foolish.

I am genuinely shocked at just how alien proper golf is to so many in the tree house. I thought most had played the game outside of America on the some of the great courses of the world but seemingly not.

You've never played Pinehurst, have you?

[Sean_A]

Keith,

You 'hold' the green by running the ball onto it. Anything else would be foolish.

I am genuinely shocked at just how alien proper golf is to so many in the tree house. I thought most had played the game outside of America on the some of the great courses of the world but seemingly not.

Paul

Pinehurst is a tough course to bounce shots onto greens.  Many greens are raised, shed a ton and not terribly large.  If pros are that good at getting into position for the runner then judging the speed from 100, 150 or 200 yards, they surely must be good enough to hold greens with aerial shots.  Pinehurst is tough, maybe the toughest course on the planet which looks tame. 

Ciao

[Brent Hutto]

I dont see such a radical example being a great selling point for the sustainable movement. If anything, it could have the opposite effect and scare people further away. A measured shift highlighting there is middle ground to be found, I believe, would be an easier sell.

Judging from the guys in my usual weekend group and on what I've overheard around the clubhouse, the "look" at Pinehurst is considered by many country-club golfers to be laughable and over the top. I have not heard one word even hinting at appreciation, only derision.

Which is neither here nor there, it's just a random smattering of middle-aged guys accustomed to lovely wall to wall green. But I do find it hard to imagine anything other than a few eye candy fillips being adopted at your typical USA golf course after these two weeks of Pinehurst #2 television coverage.

I think for most courses they could save the same amount of water by either planting common bermuda grass in the roughs or even a hybrid and then just not water it.  I don't mean to sound contrarian but an average course taking the same areas and planitng bermuda, mowing with a gang mower and not watering would work and you would not have the pine straw issues.  I love the look and I don't think the club will let it grow over but I do think it will take more work to maintain than if it were grass.  JMO....

Mike,

That's pretty much the course where I learned to play golf back in the mid-90's. They had common Bermuda even on the greens and really wide fairways with single-line irrigation. Gang mower to whack the rough back to about an inch or so during rainy weather. During a drought no need for even that. The edges of the fairways were always pretty sparse because the sprinklers (which BTW fairway irrigation was only run during dry weather, it was often left off for weeks at a stretch if we were getting normal rainfall) did not reach out there.

The problem with that super-cheap maintenance regimen was mostly that those fairway edges had a tendency toward cuppy lies. But being a few hundred feet of sand similar to Pinehurst, on balance it worked out pretty well. I do think they used a good bit of chemical input to keep that Common Bermuda rough relative free of weeds. So it had none of the look of the Pinehurst #2 "scruff". Just fairly short grass of variable color and density that could do anything from swallow a ball to tee it up to leave it on a cuppy hardpan lie depending on weather and luck of the draw.

[Paul Gray]

Sean,

My point was not about the pros. My point is that,  whilst indisputably difficult, every amateur can attempt to run the ball on a course like Pinehurst. Making it actually work is another matter but ripping a cavity back 4 iron at the pin with a low spin ratio ain't gonna cut it.

Sorry, but I get a little testy about the combination of privilege and ignorance, not that the majority here fall into that category. Remember, I'm quite literally a paid up liberal!

[Grant Saunders]

I dont see such a radical example being a great selling point for the sustainable movement. If anything, it could have the opposite effect and scare people further away. A measured shift highlighting there is middle ground to be found, I believe, would be an easier sell.

Judging from the guys in my usual weekend group and on what I've overheard around the clubhouse, the "look" at Pinehurst is considered by many country-club golfers to be laughable and over the top. I have not heard one word even hinting at appreciation, only derision.

Which is neither here nor there, it's just a random smattering of middle-aged guys accustomed to lovely wall to wall green. But I do find it hard to imagine anything other than a few eye candy fillips being adopted at your typical USA golf course after these two weeks of Pinehurst #2 television coverage.

Could this restoration in fact have the opposite effect that was hoped for by maybe taking the philosophy too far too soon?

[Brent Hutto]

Grant,

Hard to say what the long-term fallout from this might be.

At my club, the reactions are no doubt colored by the fact that our course is in the worst-looking shape it's been in at least a decade. Between some massive areas of winter kill that still have not healed and some budget-restriction-related conversion of certain spots normally maintained as fairway to low-maintenance "sustainable" areas, the results are in place not pretty. So that sort of thing is a real sore spot at the moment and the thought of a famed course like #2 spending millions of dollars to create brown fairways and weedy rough seems rather mind-boggling.

[Jud_T]

I am a huge fan of what I'm seeing.  I think the changes across the country will be slow and incremental.  Water will continue to become a more precious commodity.  Fiscal and environmental prudence will ultimately win the day.  Just as driving a massive gas guzzler is no longer seen as cool, wall to wall green and conspicuous waste will not be de rigueur.  Will there come a day in this century where Augusta will have to bow yet again to public pressure, except this time not to get green jackets in women's sizes?  Will their jackets eventually be more of a beige/green? Something more indigenous? Camo perhaps?

[Paul Gray]

I am a huge fan of what I'm seeing.  I think the changes across the country will be slow and incremental.  Water will continue to become a more precious commodity.  Fiscal and environmental prudence will ultimately win the day.  Just as driving a massive gas guzzler is no longer seen as cool, wall to wall green and conspicuous waste will not be de rigueur.  Will there come a day in this century where Augusta will have to bow yet again to public pressure, except this time not to get green jackets in women's sizes?

Perfectly put.

[Mike Schott]

I would love it. It's the double digit handicaps that want to play in under 5 hours that are going to hate it.  Now finding three friends who can afford it...

But this is always my argument about why Bethpage Black CAN be great as a public course. Both #2 and The Black are surrounded by other courses that double digits can play instead.

Why?  It looks to me like double digits could have a great time on No. 2 provided they played the correct tee.  

The problem we high double digit handicappers (there's a huge difference between an 11 and a 19) is still around the greens and not of the tee. I can probably hit most of the fairways off the tee as an 18. I will miss nearly every green unless I have a wedge in my hand.

[Jud_T]

The other problem is, it's as if Pat Ruddy designed the greens
 

Perhaps my favorite post of the year thus far...

[Mike Sweeney]

Could this restoration in fact have the opposite effect that was hoped for by maybe taking the philosophy too far too soon?

Of course, this is America and that is what we are best at - taking things to extremes!

I always think the 17th at Yale is a great example of grassing strategies. In this first photo, the left side of the green has rough in front of it, and an aerial shot is needed. The right side is fairway and the ball can be run in during the firm season:



Here the entire front of 17 green is fairway:



Reality is the 17th is raised a little ala Pinehurst, so the run-up option is really only for firm season which is pretty short in New England. My personal preference is towards the extreme in the second photo.

Yale is too rocky to have 100% "native areas", but it is fun when it gets firm.

[John Kavanaugh]

Sean,

My point was not about the pros. My point is that,  whilst indisputably difficult, every amateur can attempt to run the ball on a course like Pinehurst. Making it actually work is another matter but ripping a cavity back 4 iron at the pin with a low spin ratio ain't gonna cut it.

Sorry, but I get a little testy about the combination of privilege and ignorance, not that the majority here fall into that category. Remember, I'm quite literally a paid up liberal!

Paul,

Your testiness is blinding you to the fact that this restoration has resulted in higher green fees and slower rounds.  I have listened to you detest both for years.

[Greg Tallman]

Brett,

Don't you think that saving the costs of 35 million gallons of water will afford them to look after the area. That is before you consider chemical and fertilizer savings. All those mower operators need something to do  now no?

Seems many are suggesting, with nothing more than contrarian views as support, that the resort will ignore the areas and let them grow over.

Why would they do that? What suggests they will?

Greg,
I think for most courses they could save the same amount of water by either planting common bermuda grass in the roughs or even a hybrid and then just not water it.  I don't mean to sound contrarian but an average course taking the same areas and planitng bermuda, mowing with a gang mower and not watering would work and you would not have the pine straw issues.  I love the look and I don't think the club will let it grow over but I do think it will take more work to maintain than if it were grass.  JMO....

Mike,

I was speaking to what was done and how it would be kept in the future versus what could have been done there or elsewhere.

What maintenance will be necessary to control these areas? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? Chemicals?

And, at least in this instance, the issues is not this option versus unkempt, dried out rough. It is keeping the rough uniform, lush and green as was the standard presentation. They understood that this was perhaps a unique opportunity to do this and show case the results to the masses in a manner where the explanation/justification was carried by others.

Your local club that just stops watering the roughs... that's a bit different animal and messaging proposition.

[Greg Tallman]

Brett,

Don't you think that saving the costs of 35 million gallons of water will afford them to look after the area. That is before you consider chemical and fertilizer savings. All those mower operators need something to do  now no?

Seems many are suggesting, with nothing more than contrarian views as support, that the resort will ignore the areas and let them grow over.

Why would they do that? What suggests they will?

Perhaps they could have just started by simply withholding said fert and chemicals on the rough. Coupled with reducing the water (do we really need to remove heads? Is there some design flaw that inhibits reducing the run time or god forbid just turning them off) this would produce an inconsistent patchy type rough producing random lies and impacting recovery options.

I dont see such a radical example being a great selling point for the sustainable movement. If anything, it could have the opposite effect and scare people further away. A measured shift highlighting there is middle ground to be found, I believe, would be an easier sell.

As noted in my response to Mike Young I believe Pinehurst had a unique opportunity to do something they wanted to do and seized an opportunity to rebrand and market the "new/old" #2. Just turning off the water and letting it happen more naturally would have been a difficult message and besides that I think there was a bit more to C&C's work than just this.

[Paul Gray]

Ok, you can't run a ball to a green at Pinehurst. I accept my error and hereby apologise for the assumption.

John,

Longer rounds - why?

Higher costs - why?

[DMoriarty]

I haven't played Pinehurst, but I am not sure Paul should give up his position so easily.   These guys would rather play through the air, and the conditions this week have allowed for it.  But that doesn't mean it is the only option.  Best shot I've seen hit all week was by Aaron Baddeley on Thursday on 15.  Swung easy, hit well short of the green, and ran the ball up to a pin no one could access through the air.  I get that the greens are crowned, but crowned greens are a nightmare for higher handicap players attempting aerial shots.  There is no margin of error, and an aerial shot hitting on the side of a crown green can bound into real trouble.  Playing on the ground is challenging, but for higher handicap player such shots are sometimes easier to control, and they have much less down side.  Even when the greens are crowned.

[Paul Gray]

Moriarty,

Thanks.

As I keep repeating, I play links golf and, seeing the dry, sand based course my mind went to the heathlands of Surrey where running the ball most certainly is an option. Rather than seeming even more convinced of my own position than usual I thought I'd attempt humility and concede to those that know the course first hand. Sky Sports have just suggested I might have had a point after all, certainly on some approaches at least.

Again, my instinct remains that an octogenarian incapable of high flighted approaches could enjoy Pinehurst, much as they enjoy links golf. Nonetheless, Sean and Brian are smart fellas and not the sort I'd dismiss out of hand.

And where's John?

[Brent Hutto]

I note that a lot of these comments are coming from people who live in areas with cool climate grasses.

There are a lot of ground-game shots that work at Dornoch but do not work at Kiawah. Similarly, there are a lot of ground-game shots that work at Paul's home course that won't work nearly as well at Pinehurst.

Do not neglect the effect of sticky grass types in making the ground game an unattractive option. Geometry and sand only take you as far as the turf grass will allow...

[Paul Gray]

Bloody good point, Brent.

[John Kavanaugh]

Moriarty,

Thanks.

As I keep repeating, I play links golf and, seeing the dry, sand based course my mind went to the heathlands of Surrey where running the ball most certainly is an option. Rather than seeming even more convinced of my own position than usual I thought I'd attempt humility and concede to those that know the course first hand. Sky Sports have just suggested I might have had a point after all, certainly on some approaches at least.

Again, my instinct remains that an octogenarian incapable of high flighted approaches could enjoy Pinehurst, much as they enjoy links golf. Nonetheless, Sean and Brian are smart fellas and not the sort I'd dismiss out of hand.

And where's John?

John is traveling and not interested in arguing two simple facts. Pinehurst at over $400 per round is not nor will ever be a model for affordable golf.  Scruff will slow down the time it takes to complete a round compared to when it was wall to wall resort rough. At an American resort you do not dictate your own pace of play and you ain't playing through.

Before you call me privileged and/or ignorant. You could join either The Prairie Club or Kingsley for what one trip to Pinehurst will set you back. What we are witnessing is not good for golf.