Why Pinehurst #2 will be great for years

[Don Mahaffey]

I find it very funny to read how P2 will not work long term because of the conditions we are seeing this week.
Does anyone think the members at Merion are playing the same course the Pros played last year? How about O club from the year before?

This is a national championship and the USGA has always tried to dry things down and toughen up the courses.

I'd like to hear from someone who played the course after the renovation in '12 & '13 who thinks the renovation doesn't work.
And anyone who thinks it will cost more to have a couple of guys on a backpack sprayer with $14/gallon round up walking thru the native spot spraying than maintaining 40 acres of turf grass rough is not factoring all the costs, IMO.

Just the cost of a rough mower will pay the full salary of those two guys for at least a year, and that doesn't include the $3.75/gal cost of diesel, and the cost to house and maintain equipment.

I was there last fall and that golf course was perfect.

[William_G]

+1 Pinehurst #2 will continue to be low maintenance for a championship course

[Don Mahaffey]

Brian,
For another course to do as Pinehurst, it would need to have a similar environmental conditions.

But for all other courses, I think it all starts with water. If a club wants to do "as Pinehurst" it starts with cutting back the water, way back, and then adapting the course to the new water regime. It really is a simple mandate, but a complex problem to solve.

I like Matt Shaffer's (Supt Merion) quote "“Water is the root of all evil,” he says. “It starts the cycle. You’re flushing nutrients with a tremendous amount of water, so you lose all of them. Then it becomes more succulent so you get more disease. But when you pull the water out, you’re going to lose some grass.”

Change the cycle and you change the course.

[Paul Gray]

Don,

Excellent thread.

Like you I'm bewildered by the suggestion that loosely maintained scrub would be more costly than manicured grass. As I keep saying though, let's not kid ourselves that even those that want to emulate Pinehurst will actually be capable of grasping just what that means, much as Brian has also eluded to. Most simply can't recognise that the work at Pinehurst is ultimately not about creating a look.

[Mike_Young]

Don,
I think PH2 will remain great for years to come and I think they can maintain such conditions as you suggest but I dont' think most courses can get those conditions.  IMHO golf course conditions have to be indigenous to the particular golf course and when we try to change that is when we start to spend money.  Today we have so many golf courses that should have never been built where they are built and that initial placement created problems that may never be overcome with water or less grass or anything.  
I think the reason PH2 may change is that many of the resort guest will not understand it or accept it.  I also find it interesting that it can be promoted as helping to make the game more affordable and in the same breath not be reducing the green fee.
None of this means I don't appreciate or like what has been done.  

[Mike_Young]

Don,

Excellent thread.

 Most simply can't recognise that the work at Pinehurst is ultimately not about creating a look. 

I think that's exactly what it is....and nothing wrong with that at all....I just don't think the look can be transferred as easily and as economically as it is being marketed.

[Patrick_Mucci]

+1 Pinehurst #2 will continue to be low maintenance for a championship course

Disagree.

Lower maintenance than previously, but definitely not low maintenance.

[BCrosby]

MikeY -

The hard question is how you translate what they did at P2 to a clay-based golf course.

Cutting back on water usage is going to be required almost everywhere. There is no avoiding that fact. P2 shows how it can be done successfully on sandy soil. How to do it successfully in clay remains unclear to me.

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

Don,

Great thread - the renovation is fantastic, who here would disagree?

Granted, I think that resisting a restoration of the greens in the name of "crowned greens are now synonamous with P2" was disappointing, but noone can argue with how the course is playing / presented.

The greens at Pinehurst # 2 are not crowned like open umbrellas.
That was discussed previously.

The big question that's being asked is: what other courses are "eligible" to get the P2 treatment, a real black and white question that disappoints me, as if only a 100% emulation of what has been done at P2, complete with exposed sandy areas could be considered a success.


GCGC & PV

Some appear to be suggesting that if the climate is not right or soil type etc that even attempting something close to it is a pipe dream.

Seminole embarked on a successful project similar to #2 years ago.

And to a degree, so did Shinnecock and NGLA.

The difference in what's "native" depends upon the location of the course.
You can't expose sandy expanses on clay soils.
It's the "concept" that has merit.

Can you take us through other big name courses that could benefit from the P2 treatment in terms of the broad principles of what they were trying to achieve? (Not emulating it)

GCGC and PV and probably a number of near sea courses along the East coast.

[Greg Tallman]

Any good examples of a desert style course that has successfully employed the concept? Certainly could not shut the water off completely but the same look (no defined "edge" or turf line/migrating turf line) could be achieved I would think though perhaps not worth the trouble.

[Paul Gray]

Mike,

Sorry, you agree with me or you think it's all about 'a look'?

Crosby,

Not really sure what's unclear. Opening up corridors and watering less is universally possible. The fact that you won't have sandy scrub simply isn't the point.

[Bill_McBride]

MikeY -

The hard question is how you translate what they did at P2 to a clay-based golf course.

Cutting back on water usage is going to be required almost everywhere. There is no avoiding that fact. P2 shows how it can be done successfully on sandy soil. How to do it successfully in clay remains unclear to me.

Bob

Haven't been back to Cuscowilla for a few years.  What are they doing there on that clay based site?

Mike Y, what's going on at Longshadow?  Can you reduce water consumption?  I guess you had to for a while.  

[BCrosby]

Crosby,

Not really sure what's unclear. Opening up corridors and watering less is universally possible. The fact that you won't have sandy scrub simply isn't the point.

Paul - Obviously you could water less and widen fw's.

Less obvious is what you do with rock hard, cracked clay soil in July and August. Similarly, clay soils support taller native vegetation. You will need to maintain that.

Perhaps there are work-arounds to those and other problems. But the P2 model can not be transferred to clay-based courses without some significant changes.

Bob

[JESII]

Is it more expensive to maintain regular rough or fairway?

[Patrick_Mucci]

The big question that's being asked is: what other courses are "eligible" to get the P2 treatment, a real black and white question that disappoints me, as if only a 100% emulation of what has been done at P2, complete with exposed sandy areas could be considered a success.


GCGC & PV

Pat,

PV looks like it could use a lot less water and a lot less trees from the pics. I am yet to play it.

My uncle joined Pine Valley last December and raves about the place. He is not a GCA addict by any means and I wonder if he has a sense of before and after. I saw some pretty shocking pics of PV recently on facebook of friends who had been there recently. It shows a place that has been given the Fazio treatment big time.

Brian,

Hanging in the clubhouse at Pine Valley is/are aerials circa the 20's and 30's.
They are fantastic.
In addition, in Geoff Shackelford's fabulous book, "The Golden Age of Golf Design" are more photos of PV circa the 20's and 30's.

Those photos are fantastic.
I think some may have been posted in some threads from a few years ago.

But, if you like how Pinehurst # 2 looks, you'll love the early photos of PV, they are simply spectacular.

As late as 1964, when I first played PV the course was far more native than it is today.

For years I've advocated returning the course to it's mid 1920's configuration/look inclusive of restoring the mound in the 18th green.

Look at those photos from the 20's and 30's and let me know what you think.

Ditto GCGC in 1936

I think you and others will be incredibly impressed by what the photos reveal.

Thoughts?

[BCrosby]

Bill -

I haven't been out the Cusco is a year or so, but (as you know) they have always maintained clay wash-outs and areas of wire grass. Cusco might be a model of sorts for less water usage on clay courses, but that model will differ from P2. My guess is that there is no avoiding on clay courses more water usage and maintenance than you will need on sand courses. But I am open to other ideas on that.

One of the big stories here is the influence P2 might have on thousands of bad Florida courses. I've said for years that Florida courses, given their sand bases, evidence a massive failure of the architectural imagination.  P2 has, I think, highlighted that failure and might result in different approaches there. At least I hope so.

Bob    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Is it more expensive to maintain regular rough or fairway?

Jim,

You know the answer, fairway.

But, if you look at the old aerials of PV, circa the 20's and 30's, the "regular rough" you mention was "sandy expanses" whose maintenance expense was less than rough or fairway

[Paul Gray]

Crosby,

Cracked, dry soil is what it is. I'm no greenkeeper but so long as you're mean to it and cut out any undesirable growth you have the rough you want.The hybrid Surrey heaths could serve as a pointer. There was a good thread here recently about maintenance at such courses.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bob,

I'm not so sure that installing natural sandy areas would tolerate the torrential summer rains in Florida.

The Medalist, if they removed the scrub, could have achieved what you seek.


Bill -

I haven't been out the Cusco is a year or so, but (as you know) they have always maintained clay wash-outs and areas of wire grass. Cusco might be a model of sorts for less water usage on clay courses, but that model will differ from P2. My guess is that there is no avoiding on clay courses more water usage and maintenance than you will need on sand courses. But I am open to other ideas on that.

One of the big stories here is the influence P2 might have on thousands of bad Florida courses. I've said for years that Florida courses, given their sand bases, evidence a massive failure of the architectural imagination.  P2 has, I think, highlighted that failure and might result in different approaches there. At least I hope so.

Bob    

[BCrosby]

Pat -

Given how flat most Florida courses are, I'd guess scrub areas would survive the thunderstorms there at least as well as scrub areas will survive in the sand hills of NC.

Paul -

Hitting off hard-pan, cracked clay is not now (nor has it ever been) the future of golf architecture.

Bob   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat -

Given how flat most Florida courses are, I'd guess scrub areas would survive the thunderstorms there at least as well as scrub areas will survive in the sand hills of NC.

Bob,

The "scrub areas" at the Medalist are unplayable due to the density of the scrub, which would have to be removed to achieve the conditions you seek.

Paul -

Hitting off hard-pan, cracked clay is not now (nor has it ever been) the future of golf architecture.

Bob   

[Paul Gray]

Crosby,

I've missed plenty of fairways and played off of plenty of bare patches. It isn't supposted to be manicured. Furthermore, even when cracked the clay based stuff remains more accepting of a clubface than it's bone dry links equivalent.

[DMoriarty]

There has been a lot of discussion about the playability and sustainability of the restored native, but the biggest factor increasing playability for the higher handicap player has to be be the expanded fairways.   If fairways are 40-50 yards wide, the rough vs. native becomes much less of an issue.  And when it is an issue it is usually right at the edges.