[PCCraig]

I played Mid Pines in Southern Pines, NC last week and cannot stop thinking about it.


As I was driving the last couple of days after a couple weeks in Pinehurst, I've thought through the course many times and I am having a hard time finding shortcomings and it excels where other courses in the area can fall short.


Mid Pines has just a stunning set of original Donald Ross shaped greens. Surely #2 has a famous set of greens but they can't be considered Ross'? And can they be considered a great *set* if they lack diversity from green to green? The greens have proven difficult for the world's best to judge but at modern green speeds are they unplayable for the local golfer? MP's greens range from the subtle 12th to the wild 8th (!!) and 16th (!!!) greens.


Or does it fall short of expectations due to it's lack of length (although at 6,800 is it really short anymore?) or is it the lack of a Championship pedigree?


The routing is tight and tackles both a low portion of the property all the way up to the high ridge by the road. A beautiful and stunning site over rolling property.


Kyle Franz's restored bunkering and playing corridors infuse each hole with copious strategic interest all while remaining FUN, FUN, FUN! I could play Mid Pines every day and be perfectly content.


So, how is Mid Pines not everyone's favorite course in the Sandhills? Or perhaps it already is?

[Stephen Davis]

I played Mid Pines in Southern Pines, NC last week and cannot stop thinking about it.


As I was driving the last couple of days after a couple weeks in Pinehurst, I've thought through the course many times and I am having a hard time finding shortcomings and it excels where other courses in the area can fall short.


Mid Pines has just a stunning set of original Donald Ross shaped greens. Surely #2 has a famous set of greens but they can't be considered Ross'? And can they be considered a great *set* if they lack diversity from green to green? The greens have proven difficult for the world's best to judge but at modern green speeds are they unplayable for the local golfer? MP's greens range from the subtle 12th to the wild 8th (!!) and 16th (!!!) greens.


Or does it fall short of expectations due to it's lack of length (although at 6,800 is it really short anymore?) or is it the lack of a Championship pedigree?


The routing is tight and tackles both a low portion of the property all the way up to the high ridge by the road. A beautiful and stunning site over rolling property.


Kyle Franz's restored bunkering and playing corridors infuse each hole with copious strategic interest all while remaining FUN, FUN, FUN! I could play Mid Pines every day and be perfectly content.


So, how is Mid Pines not everyone's favorite course in the Sandhills? Or perhaps it already is?

Mid Pines is definitely my favorite course in the area, however, I do think #2 is still the better course. If I was to make a trip out there again, those are the two courses I would be playing for sure.

[Steve Lang]

   First trip?  How many times did you play it?  Its a tough crowd of competitors in the Sandhills... how many Ross's did you play?

[Steve_Lovett]

If your criteria is to choose one to play every single day, it might win out.

[Tom_Doak]

Before Kyle's work to Mid Pines, there were zero people on earth who had it rated higher than Pinehurst #2.  It would be pretty hard to go from there, to being the unanimous best course in the area, in the space of a few short years, even if it were true.  Which it's probably not, but at least you can try to make a case for it now.

[PCCraig]

  First trip?  How many times did you play it?  Its a tough crowd of competitors in the Sandhills... how many Ross's did you play?

Steve -


I’ve been visiting for 20+ years now.


I’ve played MP’s probably 4x, first time playing since Franz’s work was completed.


On this last trip I saw the following Ross:


Mid Pines
Pine Needles
#2
#3
#1
Southern Pines (cart ride to see the recent work)

[PCCraig]

Before Kyle's work to Mid Pines, there were zero people on earth who had it rated higher than Pinehurst #2.  It would be pretty hard to go from there, to being the unanimous best course in the area, in the space of a few short years, even if it were true.  Which it's probably not, but at least you can try to make a case for it now.

Tom Doak -


It was described to me last week that the ideal strategy for high quality golfers to score at #2 is to aim to hit the middle of every green and putt from there.


If that is the ideal strategy at #2 then...? 

[Tim_Weiman]

Before Kyle's work to Mid Pines, there were zero people on earth who had it rated higher than Pinehurst #2.  It would be pretty hard to go from there, to being the unanimous best course in the area, in the space of a few short years, even if it were true.  Which it's probably not, but at least you can try to make a case for it now.

Tom Doak -


It was described to me last week that the ideal strategy for high quality golfers to score at #2 is to aim to hit the middle of every green and putt from there.


If that is the ideal strategy at #2 then...?

I’d be happy to hit the middle of each green at Pine Valley. Does that mean Pine Valley lacks strategy?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Doak -

It was described to me last week that the ideal strategy for high quality golfers to score at #2 is to aim to hit the middle of every green and putt from there.

If that is the ideal strategy at #2 then...?

Actually no.  It is the best strategy at most courses to aim at the middle of every green and putt from there.  That's what pros do most of the time, until they find a hole location that fits their eye to attack.  So then . . . ? 


At #2, by contrast, it is the safest strategy to aim for the very front of every green to avoid having to chip and pitch onto the dome from either side -- just like Ian Andrew's dad taught him.  It won't win you first place, but you won't embarrass yourself and you'll probably do better than a lot of the guys playing for the middle.  It rewards the guy who keeps it straight, even if he's a short hitter, over the guy who misses wide.  Ballybunion is another course that does the same.

[PCCraig]

Before Kyle's work to Mid Pines, there were zero people on earth who had it rated higher than Pinehurst #2.  It would be pretty hard to go from there, to being the unanimous best course in the area, in the space of a few short years, even if it were true.  Which it's probably not, but at least you can try to make a case for it now.

Tom Doak -


It was described to me last week that the ideal strategy for high quality golfers to score at #2 is to aim to hit the middle of every green and putt from there.


If that is the ideal strategy at #2 then...?

I’d be happy to hit the middle of each green at Pine Valley. Does that mean Pine Valley lacks strategy?

I would suppose it would depend on your handicap.

[Tyler Kearns]

Pat,


I thought Mid Pines was fabulous, and it certainly has some more inspiring terrain than #2.  Definitely a course I could play everyday and not get bored.  Looking forward to getting back to see the work at Pine Needles (which I walked but didn't play).


Tyler

[Peter Pallotta]

Before Kyle's work to Mid Pines, there were zero people on earth who had it rated higher than Pinehurst #2.  It would be pretty hard to go from there, to being the unanimous best course in the area, in the space of a few short years, even if it were true.  Which it's probably not, but at least you can try to make a case for it now.

Tom - a question:
from your perspective (ie as a practicing architect, not as a golfer or rating panelist or fan of wonderful golf courses), what did Kyle do to pull Mid-Pines into the conversation? What did he change and/or create and/or restore that made it so much better a golf course than it was before? What needs to happen -- design-architecturally speaking -- for a golf course to go from a 'zero' (with no one calling it the best in the region) to a 'ten' (with no one now embarrassed to call it the best in the region)? That's a mighty big change, in both reality and perception. How did Kyle accomplish that?

[A.G._Crockett]

Put #2 into a separate category for just a moment; we'll come back to it. 

I think that you would get a close vote between Mid Pines and Pine Needles among golfers that play both more or less regularly.  I think it's fair to say that those two stand apart from the rest in the area, at least by a bit.  And it may very well be that the folks that list Pine Needles as #1 have Mid Pines as #2 in the area, and vice versa.  They are both that good, with no clear favorite.
#2 is a bit of a different animal, I think.  I think most golfers, almost of any skill level, would agree that they could play Mid Pines or Pine Needles every day and never get tired of either one; I'm not sure that would be true of #2 because of the degree of difficulty.  Others may disagree with that, of course.
The two wild cards in the area right now, at least for me, are #4 and Southern Pines.  I have not played #4 since it was redone, and while everyone I know that has raves about it, I'll need to play it before I decide about the "every day" test.  The old version certainly wasn't, but getting rid of 100+ bunkers dopey bunkers could certainly change that.  As for Southern Pines, I think we have to wait to see what is done to it.  I can easily imagine it becoming the equal, more or less, of Mid Pines and Pine Needles, at least someday; the routing is that good.  But it has a LONG way to go in terms of conditioning, of course, and I worry about the possible conversion of those greens to Bermuda.  I have a lot of faith in that ownership, but only time will tell.

[Tim_Weiman]

Before Kyle's work to Mid Pines, there were zero people on earth who had it rated higher than Pinehurst #2.  It would be pretty hard to go from there, to being the unanimous best course in the area, in the space of a few short years, even if it were true.  Which it's probably not, but at least you can try to make a case for it now.

Tom Doak -


It was described to me last week that the ideal strategy for high quality golfers to score at #2 is to aim to hit the middle of every green and putt from there.


If that is the ideal strategy at #2 then...?

I’d be happy to hit the middle of each green at Pine Valley. Does that mean Pine Valley lacks strategy?

I would suppose it would depend on your handicap.

I remember following Bob Lewis on the final day of the 1985 Walker Cup at Pine Valley. My recollection is that he aimed for and hit the center of many greens. That was the strategy for the competitive course record holder. If I recall correctly he was a +4.

[Tim Martin]

Put #2 into a separate category for just a moment; we'll come back to it. 

I think that you would get a close vote between Mid Pines and Pine Needles among golfers that play both more or less regularly.  I think it's fair to say that those two stand apart from the rest in the area, at least by a bit.  And it may very well be that the folks that list Pine Needles as #1 have Mid Pines as #2 in the area, and vice versa.  They are both that good, with no clear favorite.
#2 is a bit of a different animal, I think.  I think most golfers, almost of any skill level, would agree that they could play Mid Pines or Pine Needles every day and never get tired of either one; I'm not sure that would be true of #2 because of the degree of difficulty.  Others may disagree with that, of course.
The two wild cards in the area right now, at least for me, are #4 and Southern Pines.  I have not played #4 since it was redone, and while everyone I know that has raves about it, I'll need to play it before I decide about the "every day" test.  The old version certainly wasn't, but getting rid of 100+ bunkers dopey bunkers could certainly change that.  As for Southern Pines, I think we have to wait to see what is done to it.  I can easily imagine it becoming the equal, more or less, of Mid Pines and Pine Needles, at least someday; the routing is that good.  But it has a LONG way to go in terms of conditioning, of course, and I worry about the possible conversion of those greens to Bermuda.  I have a lot of faith in that ownership, but only time will tell.

AG-I think Kyle will come through again and Southern Pines will be in the same conversation. I would be happy to split Mid Pines and Pine Needles 5-5 given ten plays.

[Peter Flory]

It is an extremely lovable course due to the intimacy of the routing and the way that it rewards shaping the ball. 

It is by far my favorite course in the US to play with hickory clubs.  There is a hickory tournament there every fall (usually late Oct/ early Nov) and I would encourage anyone here to try it out next year.  If you don't have clubs, someone will lend you a set.  There are groups of players who play Pine Needles, Pinehurst, Tobacco Road before or after as well. 

[Edward Glidewell]

Put #2 into a separate category for just a moment; we'll come back to it. 

I think that you would get a close vote between Mid Pines and Pine Needles among golfers that play both more or less regularly.  I think it's fair to say that those two stand apart from the rest in the area, at least by a bit.  And it may very well be that the folks that list Pine Needles as #1 have Mid Pines as #2 in the area, and vice versa.  They are both that good, with no clear favorite.
#2 is a bit of a different animal, I think.  I think most golfers, almost of any skill level, would agree that they could play Mid Pines or Pine Needles every day and never get tired of either one; I'm not sure that would be true of #2 because of the degree of difficulty.  Others may disagree with that, of course.
The two wild cards in the area right now, at least for me, are #4 and Southern Pines.  I have not played #4 since it was redone, and while everyone I know that has raves about it, I'll need to play it before I decide about the "every day" test.  The old version certainly wasn't, but getting rid of 100+ bunkers dopey bunkers could certainly change that.  As for Southern Pines, I think we have to wait to see what is done to it.  I can easily imagine it becoming the equal, more or less, of Mid Pines and Pine Needles, at least someday; the routing is that good.  But it has a LONG way to go in terms of conditioning, of course, and I worry about the possible conversion of those greens to Bermuda.  I have a lot of faith in that ownership, but only time will tell.

#4 is excellent, but it's not as good as Mid Pines.


As for #2 -- I've never played #2, so I can't opine on it. My father has played it several times, however, both before and after the C&C work. While he agrees that it's a great golf course, he says it's just too hard to really enjoy. He would much rather play Mid Pines or Pine Needles than #2 even if the price was the same. For context, he's roughly a 9 handicap now (in his 70s), but he used to be a 4/5.

[Carl Rogers]

Played #2 once and will play again.  It is in a different category


Multiple plays at MP & PN.


MP gets the nod for me.  Multiple holes that a scratch could bogey and 14 handicapper could birdie.  Compact routing a big plus.


PN 10 & 15 IMO are weak holes.

[Ronald Montesano]

I don't believe that MidPines was ever a zero. This is an odd day, where I disagree with Peter twice!


I played it after a snow, and loved every shot on every hole. I haven't seen it since KF did his work, but I would play it all the time if I could.


Southern Pines is so deceptive. It promises you, at like 6000 yards, that you will eat it up, then it eats you up. Southern Pines does more with water than any course I've played. It comes into theoretical play, but you never really fear it, nor hit into it.


Give me Tobacco Road, MPines and SPines, and I'll eat for a lifetime.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I rated PN and MP in match play as tied. And I think with some work SP could easily tie them as well.

[Jay Mickle]

How do you establish Best? Architecture or Fun. Having played Mid Pines at least 1500 times, I surely believe it is the most fun. I can't count the # of times walking off 18 that I have run into friends and gone right back for another 18 hole walk. The strategy around the greens at #2 is first rate and surely a sterner test of golf. Mid Pines is no slouch and the stretch from 12 to 18 is as good as it gets.


Mid Pines has the bones of the championship course it was designed to be and was in the shadows when other courses were having their greens revamped, Pine Needles on the other hand was meant to be a resort course and unfortunately had the original Ross greens "updated" and lacks the strategic interest of MP.


Southern Pines has the best land for golf in the area and with committed $s for green restoration, bunkering, tree clearing and Kyle Franz's hand I look forward to seeing another absolute Sandhills gem.


I expect that I will likely rate them MP, SP then PN. and If PN is your #3 course you have a world class resort. I hope the infrastructure will be raised up to a similar level.

[jeffwarne]

I've only played Pinehurst #2 twice in different eras and I can't say I found it that fun or inspiring.
I found many of the approaches repetitive and the terrain less than exciting.
Watching the various majors there I've felt the same, but we all know how deceptive golf on TV can be.

I always thought that was because I was missing something based on its high ranking by Tom Doak in the CG and by many with high golf architecture IQ's that I respect.


I do find Tom's comments on this thread a little surprising(mainly out of a poor memory of individual holes at #2). I enjoy a unique hole or stretch of holes where the best scoring strategy is unconventional, but it would seem to me, an entire round strategy of aiming/missing short to mitigate difficult pin high pitches would be boring and repetitive indeed(even if the smartest), virtually eliminating any chance at a bold, satisfying approach or potential birdie.Several or even multiple holes, sure,is good variety... but an entire round? not so much.
But, if and when I return, I will certainly consider/embrace that strategy, though it doesn't make me MORE likely to return there quickly.


Sounds like I'd prefer the new Mid-Pines. (I enjoyed the old version but have only played it once)
But I'm not playing courses to rate or rank them.(and also points out that for most to properly rate or rank courses, they need to play them more than once)

[Sean_A]

Well, I gave MP and PN one star and would there is little to choose between them. For mine, #2 is in a superior league not only because of interest around the greens, but also off the tee.

Isn't Dormie a Sand Hills course? I don't think it is far behind MP and PN. Maybe if the walk from tee to fairways was (is?) sorted I may think better of the course. That said, I think the course would be better off if simplified a bit. Perhaps C&C tried to do a bit too much.

Happy Hockey

[Tim Martin]

Well, I gave MP and PN one star and would there is little to choose between them. For mine, #2 is in a superior league not only because of interest around the greens, but also off the tee.

Isn't Dormie a Sand Hills course? I don't think it is far behind MP and PN. Maybe if the walk from tee to fairways was (is?) sorted I may think better of the course. That said, I do not want think the course would be better off if simplified a bit. Perhaps C&C tried to do a bit too much.

Happy Hockey

Sean-Dormie has added some walkways/bridges to enhance the trek which I’m eager to see. With the exception of the par 5 10th hole which needs to be softened imo it’s a heck of a golf course and doesn’t get it’s due. Their position on the GolfWeek Top 200 Modern list at 141 is tough to reconcile given many of the courses that precede it.

[Sean_A]

Tim

Yes, I would like to see Dormie again if the walk is sorted. There is a lot of cool stuff there, much more design variety than MP or PN (some of it questionable though  ). Otherwise, I am not interested.  That said, they have gone quite private no? I probably can't play it anyway.  As I last saw the courses, my favourites in order


Pine Needles 1*
#2 3*
Tobacco Rd - see it at least once
Mid Pines 1*
Dormie r - good trip add on
Southern Pines - wouldn't skip at game at one of the above to play

Happy Hockey

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()