[Tom_Doak]

Concerning the few courses that I have played, mostly in the Sandhills, that are reviewed, I find it more interesting what is not said than what is said.

That is more cryptic than anything I didn't say in the book!  Please explain.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom gave it a six because no doubt he saw an older version.
I've always had a soft spot for Waterville

Indeed I have not played the new version of Waterville.  I consulted there for a while, and tried my best to convince them to blow up the old 7th and put a bit more life into the front nine, but I didn't have Tom Fazio's gravitas.


However, even if they'd done everything I suggested, I did not imagine I could turn the course into an 8.  It's more of a Trump-style course to me ... big dunes and not much strategy in between them, and very little short game interest.

[Bill Brightly]

Ran:

If it gets slow, perhaps I will print your letter from 1995, which I found in my files last year, along with other letters of feedback regarding the book.  It includes your rankings of courses back then.  Remember which course you put at #100?

Print the letter! And your response.


Actually, putting both letters in the next volume might be a fun part of the prologue.

[JBovay]

Ran, perhaps this reflects my preference for fun, thought-provoking, and naturally scenic courses over challenging ones, but I thought your grade for Tanglewood in North Carolina was two points too generous. For comparison, it's also my least favorite of five (less-than-famous) RTJ courses I've played (all of the others I rate as 5s).


Thanks as always for putting so much effort into your hobby of writing about golf courses, which benefits all of us so greatly.

[BCowan]

Ran,

   You and Tom rated Mid Pines at 7.  I was curious as to if hole #3 issues and not enough tree removal is why you have it so low?

-Ben

[Tom_Doak]

Ran,

   You and Tom rated Mid Pines at 7.  I was curious as to if hole #3 issues and not enough tree removal is why you have it so low?

-Ben

7 is not a low score by any reasonable interpretation of the Doak scale.  You are basically asking why we don't think Mid Pines is one of the 100-150 best courses in the world.  I'd be more inclined to wonder why you think it is.

[BCowan]

Ran,

   You and Tom rated Mid Pines at 7.  I was curious as to if hole #3 issues and not enough tree removal is why you have it so low?

-Ben

7 is not a low score by any reasonable interpretation of the Doak scale.  You are basically asking why we don't think Mid Pines is one of the 100-150 best courses in the world.  I'd be more inclined to wonder why you think it is.

When phrasing it that way I can't comment. I can say that the par 3s and par 5s as a whole at Mid Pines are superior to #2 which you gave a 10 I believe.  I'd say that MP is 8.6 right now and with a few tweaks a 9. I don't limit greatness, as in only x amount of 8s, 9s, and 10s. 

[Keith OHalloran]

Ran,

   You and Tom rated Mid Pines at 7.  I was curious as to if hole #3 issues and not enough tree removal is why you have it so low?

-Ben

7 is not a low score by any reasonable interpretation of the Doak scale.  You are basically asking why we don't think Mid Pines is one of the 100-150 best courses in the world.  I'd be more inclined to wonder why you think it is.

When phrasing it that way I can't comment. I can say that the par 3s and par 5s as a whole at Mid Pines are superior to #2 which you gave a 10 I believe.  I'd say that MP is 8.6 right now and with a few tweaks a 9. I don't limit greatness, as in only x amount of 8s, 9s, and 10s.

So, in essence, you think Ran's rating of Mid Pines on the Doak scale is too low of a number for the completely unrelated Cowan scale?

[K Rafkin]

Ben


From what I've read the key point of the Doak scale is to discern the difference between the good, the great, the exceptional, and the best.   If 8s, 9s, and 10s aren't given out sparingly and very delibertely the scale ceases to be effective.  Anyway i don't believe that the authors are limiting the number of 8s, 9s, and 10s to any certain number of courses, it just so happens that what they believe the top 100-150 courses happen to fall between those three numbers.


While a 7/10 may not seem like a great score right of the bat, it really is.  In my experience a 6 is a pretty darn good course, and a 7 is a really good course.  Just going by Tom's numbers Mid Pines received the same score as The Ocean Course, Yeamans, Pasatiempo, Cal Club, Harbour Town, Old Town, Peachtree, Kapalua, and many other great courses. 


Not to mention that Darius gives a 7 to Machrihanish which he currently has #43 on his world top 100 list.


A 7 is generally nothing to complain about.   

[Sean_A]

For my understanding of the Doak Scale it is quite a big leap from 7 to 8.  7 is kind of catchall category for those courses which are lacking in something extra to be considered among the best, but obviously very good if not great courses.  I think of Mid Pines as dickering between 6 and 7, but getting the benefit of the redo....But I don't think of Mid Pines as remotely close to an 8 because there is nothing which makes Mid Pines stand alone as unique to Mid Pines. 


Ciao

[John Mayhugh]

Del Monte (listed as Old Del Monte in the CG)

You gave it a 2.  The description:
Crammed into a small hilltop property, these small 18 holes coexist with a bunch of big live oaks by leaving them right smack in the middle of fairways, so that you have to play over them or squeeze past them.  The holes are so tight together that it's all a bit dangerous.

I think the course should be a 5, almost a 6.  It's on less than 90 acres, but I didn't see any trees in the middle of fairways and thought the routing did a pretty good job of separating play of the holes.  Sure, some tree removal would make things betters, but the ones that are there are not a huge problem.  Yardage from the back tees is just under 6400, but the greens are also in the 3000 sq ft range so approach angles still matter.  Many of the greens are on small rises with interesting lobes and runoffs, while others are at ground level.  Tilt is more prevalent than interior contours.  With some different flora, Del Monte could feel like a 2nd or 3rd tier English course. 

The course cannot help but suffer in comparison to its neighbors, but I would rather play it than Spyglass - even without taking into account the nearly $300 difference in green fee.  If the 1976 date in the CG description is the last time you saw the course, it would be worth another look. 

[Tim Passalacqua]

Sean,


I think Mid Pines stands alone or ahead of the group because of its routing.  Not only does it have great golf holes and beauty, it is blessed with a wonderful, tight routing on a great, hilly piece of property.  The flow of that golf course is incredible.  The strategy is great, the greens and short grass areas are very interesting.....I could go on and on.  I think it has a much better piece of property than #2.  It certainly stands out in my mind and is one of my favorites.  I can't think of a lot of courses that are much superior. 

[Sean_A]

Tim

Do you think Mid Pines stands out enough to warrant an 8 which according to them would be a shoe in top 100 in the world? 

Ciao

[Tim Passalacqua]

Sean,


I just looked at the Top 100 world......very strong!  I would definitely put it in the the US Top 100.


Tim

[Sean_A]

Sean,


I just looked at the Top 100 world......very strong!  I would definitely put it in the the US Top 100.



Possibly...I think Franklin Hills and Yeamans Hall are comfortable Golfweek top 100 Classic US and Mid Pines is at least as good as those two...in truth I think MP pips those two.  But my point is a 7 for Mid Pines strikes me as a very reasonable score.   


Ciao

[Joel_Stewart]

Not having read the book but I'm told you give Riviera a 9.  I would give it 2 points lower.  Having played there maybe 5 times this year I continue to see flaws.


What they have done to the barranca over the last 20 years is just deplorable.  The 1st hole is nearly completely grassed over.  Its now a mere ditch of 3 feet and you can easily walk in there and retrieve a ball.  It use to be a raging river.





What Fazio (really Tom Marzoff) did on the the 5th green is questionable.


The 6th again has the barranca filled in, the native area has been removed on the left side.


I'm still can't figure the 7th out with the large fairway bunker on the left.


The 13th is hideous with the trees and the barranca just waiting to be restored.





More bad work by Fazio on the 17th.


Not sure that warrants a 9.

[Jay Mickle]

I think Mid Pines is a wonderful course. I have played Roaring Gap and Old Town within the past 2 months and rate them with Mid Pines. Last week I played #2 again and other than its history fail to see it deserving 9s and 10, Darius's 8 maybe?? ( but only because of its length and ability to challenge modern technology. ). The green complexes lack variety and if pin positions are not on edges or corners the difficulty is substantially decreased as the green's internal contouring is not nearly up to the level of the first 3 named course.  Additionally the lack of varied topography provides lies mostly on level ground in stark contrast to MP, RG and OT. where a far greater variety of shots are required.
Rated for fun MP, RG and OT would surely get 8s, #2 likely a 6

[Kyle Henderson]

They actually site Riviera as one of the "best restorations" in the back pages... 

Not having read the book but I'm told you give Riviera a 9.  I would give it 2 points lower.  Having played there maybe 5 times this year I continue to see flaws.


What they have done to the barranca over the last 20 years is just deplorable.  The 1st hole is nearly completely grassed over.  Its now a mere ditch of 3 feet and you can easily walk in there and retrieve a ball.  It use to be a raging river.





What Fazio (really Tom Marzoff) did on the the 5th green is questionable.


The 6th again has the barranca filled in, the native area has been removed on the left side.


I'm still can't figure the 7th out with the large fairway bunker on the left.


The 13th is hideous with the trees and the barranca just waiting to be restored.





More bad work by Fazio on the 17th.


Not sure that warrants a 9.

[Kevin_Reilly]

They actually site Riviera as one of the "best restorations" in the back pages... 

Actually, it was included among the "Best Preserved" courses.

[Kyle Henderson]

Fair enough. I don't have the book in front of me at the moment...

But I think the same point is made.

They actually site Riviera as one of the "best restorations" in the back pages... 

Actually, it was included among the "Best Preserved" courses.

[David_Madison]

Tom Doak,


Strip away the history and the extra zillion yards that #2 was lengthened to deal with top level players using modern equipment, and Mid-Pines is a better golf course that offers a better playing experience to the vast majority of golfers. It uses less than half the land yet feels comfortably spacious between holes, but the efficient routing has players more connected to the course as an entirety while they are playing. It has better terrain with more varied lies and shotmaking requirements for the 98% of players who don't hit it longer than 260. It's green sites require a greater variety of pitch and chip shots. Its greens have more external and internal contour, and even when stomping at 8 or 9 lots more break than the greens on #2 at higher speeds. More holes flow in one direction or another (versus the dead straight holes that predominate #2), and its canted fairways are more challenging to get to the right spots. And it's a whole lot prettier, one of the most beautiful and classic looking inland courses anywhere.


Mid-Pines may indeed be in the top 150 when it comes to quality and enjoyability of playing experience for the vast majority of golfers who play the game. It's considered to be one of, if not the best hickory courses in the United States. #2 is a great course and one of my favorites, and clearly deserves the grade you gave it. But I think what we have here is somewhat akin to the two courses at Baltusrol. The Lower is clearly the superior big event course, but the Upper is the more special one that I believe the members prefer and that I believe (based on my one playing of each!) offers the superior playing experience.

[Tom_Doak]

Mid-Pines may indeed be in the top 150 when it comes to quality and enjoyability of playing experience for the vast majority of golfers who play the game. It's considered to be one of, if not the best hickory courses in the United States. #2 is a great course and one of my favorites, and clearly deserves the grade you gave it. But I think what we have here is somewhat akin to the two courses at Baltusrol. The Lower is clearly the superior big event course, but the Upper is the more special one that I believe the members prefer and that I believe (based on my one playing of each!) offers the superior playing experience.

Did you really compare Pinehurst #2 with Baltusrol (Lower) ?


Ran seems to be staying on the sidelines here, which is probably due to you guys arguing about courses in his backyard where he knows everyone involved in management.  So, I'll weigh in a bit.  What I'd say is that David is the second guy in the last ten posts to compare Mid Pines to #2 ... which they think is horribly overrated ... and then to use my high rating of #2 to justify a very high rating for Mid Pines. 


In other words, I don't think you're really saying Mid Pines is a 9 [equal to LACC, Seminole, and Augusta] ... you're saying Pinehurst #2 is a 7.  And I just don't agree with that at all.  #2 has not got a standout hole which automatically belongs in one of those eclectic 18's, but it has about fifteen holes that would fill in nicely if you can't come up with a great first hole, or third, or twelfth, or whatever.  Sorry if it doesn't have enough tree-lined doglegs for your tastes!


P.S.  I give zero points for history, except for my own history with the course.

[David_Madison]

Tom,


No, I'm not comparing Baltusrol Lower with #2. No way! I'm simply saying that in both cases (Baltusrol and #2/MP) the two "smaller" yet possibly better courses are from a ratings perspective beaten by their bigger tournament holding neighbors.


I didn't say that #2 is overrated. You are putting words in my mouth here. It might not have individual holes that are home runs, but taken as a whole it offers all that you and others have identified numerous times and it deserves its elite status. I'm simply saying that yard for yard, Mid-Pines may be better and I listed a number of reasons why. Should it be a 9? Not really, although I know that the title of this discussion would imply that I believe so. But if #2 is an 8, then MP should be there as well. It's that good, that interesting and feature laden, and for the vast majority of golfers out there play a more normal scaled game, a superior playing experience if they only considered the course itself and not any of its history.

[Mitch Hantman]

Ran,


The Castle Course at St. Andrews certainly disappointed many people, but I would certainly not agree with the Castle being a zero.  That one surprised me the most. 

[Mark Pritchett]

I like Mid Pines a lot and believe Kyle Franz's work there is stellar, but I am not sure it is even better than Pine Needles, let alone No. 2. 


Just among Ross courses without thinking too much, I would have MP in the same tier as Holston Hills, French Lick, Charlotte, Carolina, Augusta CC, Oyster Harbors, et al.  All good courses that I love and would be happy to play everyday, but most likely 5-6's or 7's at best on the Doak (or similar) scale. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()