[David Ober]

Saw #4 come up in Tom's thread and thought I'd go ahead and start the thread.


I have played it exactly one time. It was two years ago in March. It was in the 40's, sopping wet from days of rain, standing water everywhere.


I am a huge Gil Hanse fanboy due to Rustic and LACC North and the #4 looked gorgeous.


But I remember the greens being crazy to putt at the speeds they had them due to the cold. They were probably pushing 13. Perfect condition.


I remember wanting to love the course, but I couldn't even get into the round because the conditions were awful, and my back was so bad I had to play every shot with my "step-through" swing.


Bottom line: I can't even give an informed opinion, so I'm asking here: What should my opinion be? 

[Tom_Doak]

Bottom line: I can't even give an informed opinion, so I'm asking here: What should my opinion be? 

I will wait at least a bunch of posts before chiming in.


I walked it on a day the course was closed, at the end of a wet winter, and also found the fairways quite wet as you describe.

[Ira Fishman]

I just posted in the other thread. We played in perfect conditions. So if you care about my views, see other thread.


Ira

[Jeff Ober]

I've only played it twice (once in those same conditions as Dave, because we were playing together), but the more I think about it, the less highly I rate it.  I think it is to No. 2 what Streamsong Black is to Streamsong Red and Blue.  Just a little too extreme, a little too much movement on and around the greens.  I'm thinking of holes like 4 and 6 with the massive drop-offs on one side, the big swale off the green at 2, the significant elevation changes off the tees at 2, 3, 5, and 13, and the large bunker complexes on holes like 15.  I prefer the more subtle slopes of the other courses I mentioned.  I'm glad it exists as a counterpoint to No. 2 and it's a fine course, but I enjoy others more.

[Edward Glidewell]

I played it in the late fall when the course was in excellent condition and really enjoyed it. I don't think it's as good as Mid Pines, Pine Needles, or Dormie Club, but I would like to play it again.

[Andrew Harvie]

It just feels like it's trying too hard for me. Some of the greens are severe (not always a bad thing to me), but I often felt like they didn't match the shots asked, which is the issue. When the greens weren't cranked up to a 8 or 9, I find it a little bland (specifically off the tee).


With that being said, the highlights for me are the 2nd, 9th and the 15th

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have played #4 in three different versions. I enjoyed it in 1985 and 2016. I thought it was great fun. I loved driving the ball. There was ample room off the tee. The shots into the greens were very demanding, more so than the other two renditions. I really enjoyed it when I played it in 2019. I liked the bunkering and loved the greens. I did not feel it was over the top at all. There were some holes where I thought the pin placements were a bit too difficult. I think it is a wonderful complement to #2.

[PCCraig]

The commentary in that it's "trying too hard" is probably correct.


I totally understand that they were given a Fazio course with non-sandy soil and a big lake in the middle. However, the course is a group of hit and misses, to me at least.


Some of the more subtle parts of the course seem to work the best, such as the par-3 11th or the short par-4 16th. But then there are holes like the 13th and 14th which...really aren't very good holes. As I mentioned in the other thread, there are holes that just throw everything but the kitchen sink at you like the 2nd, 5th, and 17th and it rings fairly hollow for me.


It's a nice course, and not one that I'd refuse a round on. But really surprised by all the love its gotten.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

"Trying too hard" feels about right.

I've only played it once.

I'll only comment on how several 4 and 6 were, particularly with 5 in between (only one of us reached the green with an iron, and we're not short hitters). That's not an easy stretch of golf, and I hit it to 10 feet on six (and then felt I had to lag from there lest it race past).

[Tom_Doak]

"Trying too hard" feels about right.

I've only played it once.

I'll only comment on how several 4 and 6 were, particularly with 5 in between (only one of us reached the green with an iron, and we're not short hitters). That's not an easy stretch of golf, and I hit it to 10 feet on six (and then felt I had to lag from there lest it race past).

I thought the fourth hole was interesting -- I'm guessing the inspiration for it was #7 at Palmetto GC, and the hole that used to be there was a mess.  The sixth hole is indeed severe; it seemed like overkill to make the left side so difficult, with the sheer drop to the right already there.

[PCCraig]

"Trying too hard" feels about right.

I've only played it once.

I'll only comment on how several 4 and 6 were, particularly with 5 in between (only one of us reached the green with an iron, and we're not short hitters). That's not an easy stretch of golf, and I hit it to 10 feet on six (and then felt I had to lag from there lest it race past).

I thought the fourth hole was interesting -- I'm guessing the inspiration for it was #7 at Palmetto GC, and the hole that used to be there was a mess.  The sixth hole is indeed severe; it seemed like overkill to make the left side so difficult, with the sheer drop to the right already there.

I liked the 4th...it's pretty close to a mirror of the 3rd at WBYC, minus the partial blindness.

[Brock Lynch]

I like Pinehurst #4 and agree with Tommy that it's a good complement to #2. The course is entirely too wet and plays much better when it is dried out. Most of the greens are very challenging and because of their size makes it difficult on the once-a-year player to know where to play and how the ball reacts on and around the greens. There are some beautiful views on the course and I think that is what the resort guest remembers most, if they can get past the wet fairways. There are some good tee shots; 3, 7, 9, 10, 17 come to mind. But mostly, its wide and promotes one to bang away off the tee. I think PCCraig has it just about right. It's a nice course with really good greens, but probably doesn't live up to the hype. If #4 played as firm as #2, it would be much better.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I thought the fourth hole was interesting -- I'm guessing the inspiration for it was #7 at Palmetto GC, and the hole that used to be there was a mess.  The sixth hole is indeed severe; it seemed like overkill to make the left side so difficult, with the sheer drop to the right already there.

The 4th was short enough to be manageable, at least.

But one player in our group also found himself about 50 yards from the green (and 25 feet below it) despite landing his ball on the fringe.  (I'm not saying it was a good shot - it wasn't.)

It was windy and kinda chilly the day I played it.

[Tom_Doak]

Is this really all of the people on the forum who have played #4 ?  It's a pretty slow thread compared to the one about Sweetens Cove!

[Eric LeFante]

I played #4 once and thought it was a good resort course but not top 100 in the US or on the same level as Mid Pines, which it's hyped up to be.


I don't like the 90 degree dogleg right opening hole. I've thought about other course that start with sharp doglegs and for some reason this one just doesn't seem like a good opening hole. I also didn't like 8, 13, 14 as these are holes aren't unique.


I love the topography of the 5th hole and it stood out as one of the best holes I played on my trip. I like 17 and 18. Would like to play it again to see if I gain a greater appreciation for it.

[David_Madison]

Is this really all of the people on the forum who have played #4 ?  It's a pretty slow thread compared to the one about Sweetens Cove!

Tom,

I'm a Pinehurst member, and in fact played #4 just a couple of days ago. I like the course and enjoy playing it with its vast expansive views. I think the course is very good but there were a number of missed opportunities as it could have been outstanding.

Feels to me like some of the greens complexes are imposed on the site rather than laying on the land naturally. There's plenty enough natural terrain there to differentiate the complexes from #2's without going as extreme as was done. There are a number of greens that feel natural to the site - #1,#3, #7, and #10 stand out to me in that regard.

It feels to me that in places Gil Hanse tried too hard to make it clear that this wasn't going to be a repeat of #2. But in that effort he lost the sense of place that would have given it a more iconic Sandhills/Pinehurst feel and identity. There's plenty of that Pinehurst scrubby look, but often it's totally out of play and feels more like eye candy. There's little or none of that on #2 - - -whatever you see there is part of the play of each hole.

I don't understand the 5th hole. It plays exceptionally long except for the bombers who can fly it 260 - 280 uphill to the downslope over the top of the hill. There's a huge fairway bunker on the high/left side of the fairway maybe 60 yards short of the green. Green-high on the left are a few pines and then the ground slopes down from there towards the green. The green is perched way up, with a collection swale between the side-slope off the trees and the green. The green feels totally imposed on the site, with a massive false front and a severe fall-off on the right to a deep sand bunker.

Given the heavy resort and average golfer play, the fairway bunker left/short of the green is a mystery to me. Everyone is hitting fairway woods into the green. With most players cutting their shots that bunker is "perfectly" placed for them but stronger players can ignore it. I can't tell you how many players as a result of that bunker push the ball right to avoid it and then end up in total jail right of the fairway. If I was designing that hole, that bunker goes away and I'd let the land just flow naturally from the high left tree line down to a green that drapes the site. Given the length of the hole and the challenge just to get up into the vicinity of the green in regulation, the hole would still be plenty challenging while at the same time fit in to what would be an identifiable Pinehurst-looking site. And playing the hole successfully would be achievable for many more players while still presenting plenty of challenge for stronger players.

Would love to hear your thoughts on my comments as well as what you think of the course.

[Will Spivey]

I played #4 once and thought it was a good resort course but not top 100 in the US or on the same level as Mid Pines, which it's hyped up to be.


I don't like the 90 degree dogleg right opening hole. I've thought about other course that start with sharp doglegs and for some reason this one just doesn't seem like a good opening hole. I also didn't like 8, 13, 14 as these are holes aren't unique.


I love the topography of the 5th hole and it stood out as one of the best holes I played on my trip. I like 17 and 18. Would like to play it again to see if I gain a greater appreciation for it.

I think Eric summed up my thoughts quite nicely. I have played it twice since the redo. Doubtless, this version is a major improvement over the Fazio version. The new #4 certainly fits the resort in a way the old #4 did not, but I still don't really get what all the fuss is about. On this site we argue about the top 0.5% of all courses. Number four is a fine golf course, and mostly fun to play (I really do not like the par 3 4th or the par 5 13th), however, it is nowhere near the 99th best course in the country, as one magazine panel has ranked it. I would say it is a distant second to #2 (or maybe third behind the Cradle). In the area I would rate #2, Mid Pines, Pine Needles and Dormie all well ahead of #4.


Though the setting is quite different, Pinehurst (the resort) is a bit like Kiawah with one "must play" course (excluding the privates) and the rest are fine, but not great, golf. Unfortunately, at both resorts the pricing of the courses leave many better options in the area.


When I played it two weeks ago I had the best caddie I've ever had anywhere -- Geary Sharber. He played college golf at MTSU in the 70's and spent a couple years on tour. He was the highlight of the day. The next time I play at the resort I'm asking for him.

[Edward Glidewell]

On this site we argue about the top 0.5% of all courses.

This is definitely true, and I've always thought it was perhaps a bit of a disservice to other courses and golf architecture in general. For one, most of those top courses have been discussed ad nauseum to the point that there can't be much left to say, even ignoring the fact that they're courses (at least the ones in the US) the vast majority of golfers will never ever have a chance to play.


Just because a course isn't one of the 100 or 200 best courses in the country (or world) doesn't mean there isn't stuff there worth discussing. There can be a couple of standout, interesting holes on an otherwise pedestrian course, or even something that's so clearly terrible that it could be worthwhile to discuss what the architect was thinking and/or what went wrong.


With that said, I suppose most posters have not seen most of those courses (they're likely to be regional at best), which would preclude much discussion.

[Tom_Doak]

On this site we argue about the top 0.5% of all courses.

This is definitely true, and I've always thought it was perhaps a bit of a disservice to other courses and golf architecture in general. For one, most of those top courses have been discussed ad nauseum to the point that there can't be much left to say, even ignoring the fact that they're courses (at least the ones in the US) the vast majority of golfers will never ever have a chance to play.

Just because a course isn't one of the 100 or 200 best courses in the country (or world) doesn't mean there isn't stuff there worth discussing. There can be a couple of standout, interesting holes on an otherwise pedestrian course, or even something that's so clearly terrible that it could be worthwhile to discuss what the architect was thinking and/or what went wrong.

Yes.


So, maybe, you could follow your own advice? 

[Edward Glidewell]

Yes.


So, maybe, you could follow your own advice? 

I tried a couple of times! There was almost no response, which is what led to my other observation at the end of the comment you quoted. If most others have never seen the course, they're unlikely to chime in.

[Tom_Doak]

Yes.


So, maybe, you could follow your own advice? 

I tried a couple of times! There was almost no response, which is what led to my other observation at the end of the comment you quoted. If most others have never seen the course, they're unlikely to chime in.

I apologize.  I hadn't noticed that you had commented earlier on this thread.

[jeffwarne]

.

[Tom_Doak]

Well, I just finished a long-winded post, only to be timed out of the Discussion Group, and lose it when I hit send.  (sigh)  Does Pinehurst monitor Ran's server?      I will try again later, or tomorrow.

[Edward Glidewell]

I apologize.  I hadn't noticed that you had commented earlier on this thread.

No apology necessary. I also didn't really mean on this thread -- while I have played #4 and enjoyed it at the time, I don't really remember it all that well (I usually have to play a course several times before I have the type of recall some people have after one go) so I'd need refreshers on specific holes. Regardless, I was referring to other times in the past where I've gotten no real traction on pointed comments about certain holes/courses that aren't among the best in the world.

[PCCraig]

Totally unrelated to the architecture, but I do think the Sugarloaf Social guys did a nice job curating all the pins, scorecards, etc. on #4 (and #3 as well).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()