Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Tom_Doak on July 26, 2008, 02:22:33 PM
-
I'm in Pinehurst this weekend, and walked the No. 2 course last night with one of my interns. It has always been one of my favorite courses for its unique greens and for its general understatedness.
It was sad to see it. Of course, in summer months, everything is the same pale green and the course has never looked at its best, but in the 8-10 years since I was last here, it appears they've lost their feel for what made the course special. The mowing lines suck, the bermuda roughs have been drastically expanded, and all of the cool little touches around the course have been essentially paved over with bermuda. It feels as bad as visiting an old favorite uncle who is now suffering from dementia.
They have lost it before, in the 1970's, and got it back. I hope they can do it again. Right now it is difficult to believe people are paying through the nose to play it.
-
Are the new rough lines due to the US Amateur?
-
Sean:
I suspect the mowing lines were changed before the U.S. Opens and they have never gotten back to where they should be. Half the strategy of the course seems to be gone now ... you used to play into a corner of fairway past a bunker to get an angle to the green, and now the corner is rough.
-
Would mowing really detract that much from the architecture?
-
Tom:
Yep, that's how I see it too
Cary
-
Very sad to hear that. Its been about 8 years since I have been there and played (got snowed out the last time believe it or not) and I was in the process of trying to get back there soon. Maybe I will rethink the destination and go somewhere new.
-
Would mowing really detract that much from the architecture?
The way they changed the mowing at #2 yes. For example, the first hole has a fairway bunker on the left that you can drive it into - or should I say use to be able to drive it into. The bunker used to sit right on the edge of the fairway. I found that right next to the bunker was the ideal place to hit your second shot from because the green subtly tilts from right to left. Now that bunker probably sits 10 yards outside of the fairway. Drives really won't go into it anymore and you've lost the angle of attack. Another example is on 16. There used to be lots of fairway over the left bunker just over the water. If you could carry it far enough you could take it down the left and easily reach the green in two. Now all that fairway has been lost and you must play toward the two fairway bunkers on the reach, making the hole much more difficult to reach in two. This kind of thing has happened on hole after hole.
And, I have to agree with Tom. I've played the course well over 200 times in over the last 18 years. The mowing patterns definitely changed prior to the first Open and they have never gone back. Although the Open did bring about removing some trees behind the 3rd green - I think more for spectator viewing - but it did make it an awesome skyline green. All they need to do is get the mowing and maintenance right and it is a terrific course.
#2 also has the unideal maintenance meld going. For the last several years the fairways are always soft - even during a drought. Usually the greens are too soft as well. It's not right when my three irons are stopping right by their pitch marks on those greens.
The family that owned the corporation that owned Pinehurst recently sold everything but Pinehurst. So the family is focusing all of their attention on Pinehurst. Perhaps Tom could right them a very polite letter about what needs to be done. Of course with another Open in 2014 I doubt anything that anyone says - unless it is Mike Davis - will make any difference.
-
Since #2 is walking-only, I don't see any reason to keep the fairways as soft as they've been the past few years. I'll accept that the greens might need a bit more water due to the heavy play and expectations of resort guests, but having a ball pick up mud in the middle of a drought ought to be unacceptable.
Steve - a similar approach to #16 was taken at #4 where the fairway edge behind the left fairway bunker has been moved several yards to the right. Now the bunker is just another penal hazard with rough surrounding it. I don't know how the resort benefits from narrowing the fairways and planting wall-to-wall bermuda. It slows play - a real problem - and takes away some of the playing characteristics that made ithe course unique.
-
Steve Kline,
Changing the mowing patterns/narrowing the fairways and not restoring them seems to be a "universal" for preparing for one of the "big shows".
Wonderful courses such as Newport, Merion, Shinnecock, Pinehurst, Bethpage and others have lost much of their original fairway widths.
And for what, four days out of every ten years ?
The concept of horizontal elasticity seems to be undiscovered by the wonderful clubs that let the camel into the tent.
-
Interesting about the wall to wall Bermuda; Tom and Craig can you provide specifics? Every time I go down there I get to hear how they are reclaiming sandy waste areas, for example on 11 and 12.
Tom, did you get a chance to talk to the super? Could green softness have something to do with the Am, or the conversion some years back to bent?
IMHO when the powers that be decide a golf course cannot be maintained as it was designed, then something isn't wrong with the golf course, something is wrong with the game of golf.
Mark
-
Tom:
I was really saddened when reading your post - mostly because I just got home from doing battle with Pacific Dunes for 36 holes in a 30 mph wind and hated having to leave. While playing through some absolute fear (the
same fear Pinehurst used to generate) when hitting approach shots to the PD greens, I had hoped that #2 was part of your mindset when designing Pacific Dunes.
Whether #2 influenced you or not, thank you for a wonderful gift to all of us who relish a stern, frightening and fun test of seaside golf!
I will watch carefully on the US Am tv coverage to see if they make any mowing changes.
-
How can some of these venerable old clubs not know something so fundamental? #2 is not the only one.
Tom's criticisms seem objective enough. Or, Are they subjective falling under some Big World umbrella?
When they get to be a top 10 course, do they freak out and figure change is warranted?
::)
-
Sweet. Now I'll feel better if I have to withdraw from my qualifier on Monday.
-
Tom D.
Sad to hear this about #2.
Is tournament golf ruining some to the old great golf courses with increased rough. Too challenge the professionals it seems the fairways are reduced in width. Are you lobbying to change the place back to its original intent, including the green contours that Pete Dye has talked about?
-
Since #2 is walking-only....
Since when? If this is true, they must have changed it in the last 5 years. Bravo, if so.
As far as the narrowing of playing corridors, that isn't new, either. Bethpage narrowed the Black for the '02 US Open, and from what I hear (here), they haven't been back.
-
Mark B.: Okay, on 11 and 12 there is 90 feet of fairway, 60-70 feet of rough to either side, and then about 25 feet of "restored" sandy waste.
The director of maintenance here, Brad Kocher, is a longtime friend and he is not in town this week. I hesitated about making my post for that reason, but then I figured I have had the course rated as a ten for about 15 years and I should change it if it was warranted.
Scott B: Yes, lots of courses have narrowed the fairways for Opens, with mixed results. Shinnecock didn't mow theirs back out between 1995 and 2004, but now they have gone back to the original widths and it is great to see it again -- I was there earlier this week. Other courses have stayed on the straight and narrow, but courses like Torrey and the Black (sorry Philip) were not as strategic regarding fairway placement as Pinehurst No. 2, which lives and dies on subtle stuff like that. Ben Crenshaw says that there are three holes at Augusta where his ideal landing area is now in the rough ... I bet there are six holes at Pinehurst where that's true.
-
I played there in 2004, so I can provide a reference point in the interim period since Tom saw it last. The only problem is I've only seen it once, so I don't know how much of the fairway was rough at that point. I do know that most of the rough was fairly short and playable (the first hole probably hd the worst rough that I remember) and the fairways seemed somewhat generous. Our caddie did tell us that they had begun narrowing the fairways for the Open's return, but that there was more to come.
Tom, take a look at these pictures of #11 and #12 from four years ago. Has the course returned to these widths, or is it even narrower than this?
(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b189/timgolfpics/PH211Approach.jpg)
(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b189/timgolfpics/PH212Approach2.jpg)
-
The 1974 master plan specified the removal of love grass on pretty much every hole -- so much for the restoration!
-
Since #2 is walking-only....
Since when? If this is true, they must have changed it in the last 5 years. Bravo, if so.
Scott- I meant that the course is walking-only wrt to the restriction of carts to the outer limits of each hole. Carts are not permitted on the fairways or rough - no change in that regard - and therefore the wear on fairway grass is minimal. However, since last March carrying your bag is permitted.
-
They have lost it before, in the 1970's, and got it back. I hope they can do it again. Right now it is difficult to believe people are paying through the nose to play it.
Tom, suppose they don't get it back. What score would you give Pinehurst? 9? 8? Something else?
-
Jim:
If I answer that question, I will have to re-rate 1,000 other courses, so I'll pass. Really, I just hope they get it back to where it should be. I'm not campaigning for the job in any sense ... Bill Coore is working down here right now and I'm sure he could help them, as he's much more familiar with the course than I am. Unfortunately, though, they don't seem to want any help, so it may take some bad reviews to get them to listen.
-
Mr. Mucci - you are correct. But with wall to wall bermuda wouldn't it be easy to narrow and expand the fairways at will? It's all the same grass, right?
Craig - I only mentioned two holes to give examples, but you are right about #4. There used to be fairway behind that fairway bunker. You could take your tee shot over that bunker and get a little turbo boost enhancing the opportunity to reach the green for really long hitters. Another example is #3. The fairway use to go almost all the way to the sandy waste area on the right - within a couple of yards any way. This helped to open up left hand hole locations. Now the fairway is so narrow you pretty much just end up in the same spot no matter what and can't play strategically for the left hand hole locations anymore. As far as the greens, when the first Open came they regrassed the greens with a more heat tolerant bent grass that would allow them to keep them firm and fast for the Open - since it is usually brutally hot in June. It's worked for the Open but they still keep them soft and flow the rest of the year. Frankly, over the last 5 years or so I've felt that every other course at the resort has better playing conditions than #2 - which is pretty sad given the cost to play it.
Tom D. - Ideal landing areas (if being really picky) given the new mowing patterns:
1. left rough for me (but I can see how it would be left rough for some)
2. Right now I can't recall how close the fairway is to the left hand bunkers but the ideal landing area is as close to those bunkers as you can get
3. right rough
4. left rough
5. left rough
6. par 3
7. no problem
8. no problem
9. par 3
10. no problem
11. left rough for right hand pins
12. no problem
13. left rough for right hand pins
14. no problem
15. par 3
16. left rough
17. par 3
18. right rough if wanting to shorten hole
I would be interested how you see this Tom. Also, they narrowed the fairways in the worst way - they simply lopped about 10 yards off either side of the fairways on every hole. They could have been more thoughtful and preserved some of the angles bringing them in more on one side than the other. Of course then some of the rough bunkers would have really been in the rough.
The sandy waste areas on 11 and 12 have been since I started going 18 years ago as far as I can remember.
As for walking it's always been carts on paths at all times. Years and years ago, if you wanted to walk you had to take caddies but members that were part of the walking club could walk and carry after 3:45 any day of the week on a first come, first serve basis - an absolutely awesome treat. Now, it is still carts on path only. The only way resort guests can walk is with caddies. And, members can walk and carry at any time. At least, so my dad tells me who is a member.
-
I have never played Pinehurst #2. Just curious if everyone agrees with Tom Doak that it was ever a 10 on the Doak Scale?
-
The second hole left hand bunkers used to be on the edge of the fairway, maybe even part-way into the fairway. Now they are ten-plus yeards into the rough. That corner was always the best angle to get to certain cups.
I've always thought that the best set-up there was wide fairways with deep rough and penal waste areas in play versus narrow fairways with moderate rough that still allowed you to advance the ball pretty well. Now it's all become kinda' a mush.
-
Tom D.,
Hasn't Rees Jones been consulting with Pinehurst for a number of years, leading up to the past couple US Opens?
-
Jeff,
I played No. 2 with Rees a few years ago, and yeah, he consulted up to the last Open at least. Probably still there. I asked a lot of questions and got a lot of answers about just what went into the renovations. Kinda fun to hear.
I also asked about the look of the course in the pro shop, esp. the wall to wall overseeding in the winter. They said the average resort golfer didn't care for the striking contrast (to me at least) of green fw and brown rough. For me, that look was one of the best in golf and I was sorry to see that go.
In fact, that overseeding has taken the course down in my eyes as much as the narrowed fw. I actually didn't mind those as much, since the last time I played, I took my son down there after the AJGA Footjoy in Greensboro a few years ago, and as a compeitive golfer, at least he enjoyed the US Open fw width as a point of comparison. (He managed a couple of 74's from the tips)
Mike,
As has been discussed here before, P2 is one of those courses that kind of grows on you, since its not ocean front spectacular. It took me three playings to put it in my top ten. If ranking had just started in the last 20 years, it might not have made it to anyone's top ten, so thank God its reputation was established long ago.
Even then, in many ways I can understand those who call it a "one trick pony" since most of its challenge is those domed greens. I have never analyzed whether the angles mean that much with todays clubs as they used to, and whether that should affect the rankings. It has sure held up well in the last few Opens, which is what most people probably look at. Without those Opens, it might have started to fall down the lists a bit.
-
Mike S:
I do agree with Tom that #2 was a ten at one point. However, keep in mind this -- at any point in time there are quite a few layouts that have bounced down a peg or two and sometimes even more.
The issue Tom raised -- fairway widths -- is simply a sore point that I also have -- see ANGC and BB as two quick examples of this similar type.
Pinehurst in general has gone through a major up and down cycle over the years from the Tufts through Diamondhead to Club Corp and all the related cast of characters that have passed through that area.
I had the pleasure in first playing #2 when the natural elements that made the course so grand were alive and well. When prepared to what Ross had in mind the layout presents a very clear and compelling demonstration of architecture at its highest level.
Conceptually, the whole notion of "widths" is lost among those who conduct national championships - save for the recent take of Mike Davis at the USGA and Kerry Haigh of the PGA.
Too many people / courses have the mistaken belief that narrowing fairways to the point of bowling alley width is the only way to test the top players today. That is baloney. How bout the players be allowed to sample #2 as it was meant to be played.
I do agree with Tom D that if folks there have such a closed mind then a number of bad reviews -- plus other comments -- may be needed for them to see the light.
But, as I said previously, the same thing needs to be said for a range of courses that have followed suit. I loved Bethpage Black when it was the Black of old. That has been altered to the poiint of not be recognizable
Mike, many people don't get the meaning of #2 even in its best of days because not one hole there would really make a top 18 all-star listing and the elements of strategy are akin to playing TOC. Playing one time or even two times doesn't mean a full revelation of what Ross provided. I can easily understand people who play it one time coming away scratching their heads and wondering what all the hoopla is about.
Steve K:
Thanks for your post.
I played #2 and all the related courses in and around the area when I was a student at South Carolina and visiting the greater Sandhills region. #2 still has the framework for greatness but frankly the course needs to abandon the incomprehensible desire to abandon its very roots of greatness for a version that is clearly incompatible with its true meaning.
Gents:
Doak's comments are also noteworthy because it proves the point -- not that it had to be proved -- that real evaluations of the top tier layouts -- the so-called "sacred cows" sometimes is left on the sidelines and many people simply presume that such courses will ALWAYS be among the very top tier of places. That's not the case -- either with Tom's mentioning of #2 or any other ciourse(s) for that matter.
-
Random musings, but I wonder how much of the success from the Opens works against Pinehurst going back to some other look. As I mentioned above, my son, and I think lots of others, would prefer to play P2 as it looked in the Opens they have seen on TV. While you can't see green speed and minor changes in rough depth, fw width are easily recognizeable. I wouldn't be surprised if now, those paying $300 or whatever would feel cheated if No. 2 was "mowed out" (in their eyes) to make it an easier test. They already feel cheated if they have to play any of the other Pinehurst courses.....
Leaving the fw narrow is probably a pretty good commerical decision, as is wall to wall overseeding. it would take a lot of negative reviews here to overturn the more publicly accessible US Open TV message that Pinehurst No. 2 "ought to" be set up some other way.
-
Jeff:
The :some other way" was how Pinehurst #2 was MEANT to be played. That's the point Tom and others -- myself included have made. The issue is that management generally falls back on the tried and true mentality in narrowing courses to the point in which the fundamental character of what made the place grand to start with is now lost for the usual preferred look.
It's long overdue for width to be returned to its past glories -- ANGC and Bethpage Black can also use a bully pulpit beatdown as well.
-
Jeff:
The :some other way" was how Pinehurst #2 was MEANT to be played. That's the point Tom and others -- myself included have made. The issue is that management generally falls back on the tried and true mentality in narrowing courses to the point in which the fundamental character of what made the place grand to start with is now lost for the usual preferred look.
It's long overdue for width to be returned to its past glories -- ANGC and Bethpage Black can also use a bully pulpit beatdown as well.
Matt - I think Jeff understands that. Tom understands that. You understand that. I understand that. A bunch of people here understand that. At the end of the day, we are a minority of the cash flow driving decisions at Pinehurst, which I believe is Jeff's point. The "masses" that go there probably want to play a US Open course.
-
Mike
I group it with TOC and all three Royal Melbourne courses in terms of how I reacted to it. A lot of fun, huge challenge -- and you can't lose a ball. I think a lot of people subconsciously compare it to Pebble; they're sort of twinned. Interestingly, I have had many opportunities to schedule a trip to Pebble but haven't felt the need to go back now in more than 10 years. I have gone way out of my way to play #2.
Reflecting a little more, it scores on four fronts: fun, intellectual challenge, physical challenge, emotional challenge.
The fun comes in the form of shots played to, on, and, all too often, from just off the greens.
It's such a thinker's course owing to the inaccessibility of the architecture. There are spots to hit to off the tee, but those spots are not framed or dictated in overt ways. Also, paralysis by analysis is a common consequence of shots just off the green.
I guess the changes cut two ways. One, they raise the accessibility, and two, they might not even be raising the accessibility properly.
Of course like the other courses cited you must execute: there is a fine line between acceptable and poor execution, which owing to the inaccessibility of the architecture may not be apparent for the first several plays. After the first several plays, however, a firm imprint of past failures induces an anxiety that would mystify the non golfer, for there is no apparent danger, nothing particularly dramatic or heroic in the vistas to give the bystander visual confirmation of the player's agita.
It's not a course that "tells" or "shows," it's a course that "reveals," and if you aren't willing to put in the effort to find it you're going to wonder what the fuss is about.
All of this of course is really a byproduct of the core physical challenge: short game execution. As at TOC, there will be shots you may be tempted to try which you most-certainly have never or very rarely practiced. If the dub's "signature" shot at TOC is the 100-foot putt, at #2 it's the Texas Wedge that must trundle up a 5-foot steep slope at an angle, then roll downhill / sideways / not straight to the hole. Or maybe that shot is a 7-iron bump and run. Wait, make that a one-lever flop, or is it a spin-pitch, no, it's a dessert topping...
I hesitate to make the next comment, given the posters above have forgotten more about golf than I ever will learn, but I am not sure I would like to see love grass make a big return. I'm not good enough for the greens to be so easy that I need such a challenge from being out of position. Having the wrong angle in is enough for me! But if D Ross put them in and T Doak
laments wall-to-wall Bermuda, then I must be wrong. Guess it's the old problem of designing for the expert player vs the dub. To make a point here, though, I would not label love-grass removal as dumbing down the architecture for the resort golfer, because the love grass, like the addition of rough, makes the architecture more not less accessible in that it helps "frame" the holes and tell the golfer where he is supposed to hit it.
Now, as I am someone who manages the special combination of poor playing ability with course-judgment abilities that would do a caveman proud, take these comments for what they're worth. Personally, I love the idea of a course where the dub can't lose a ball while the expert is tested to the max, but what do I know about the expert? As someone who feels the need to play a course multiple times just to figure out what it's about, I liked the course from the start but did not begin to feel architecture OCD until the 10th play. Now, a reaction sets in whenever I travel within 100 miles, and that's no laughing matter with gas prices where they are.
Dang. I have to call up right now to see about getting on Wed am. Mapquest puts the detour at 3 hours. I could check room and course availability for you, too!
Mark
-
Would mowing really detract that much from the architecture?
In he case of Pinehurst, where the difference between a good angle and bad angle is microns, yes. You could screw up the strategies exponentially by growing rough in the wrong places.
Can anyone get more deets?
-
If Pinehurst isn't a 10, it's close enough for me. I'll leave the 8,9 10 distinctions to Tom.
As far as bad mowing lines go, Tom knows better than just about all of us that there are many reasons/scenarios in which courses get bad mowing lines. Usually, and Tom has probably seen this in hundreds of golf courses, it is from sloth or inattention from the superintendent or his crew, where greens shrink, chipping areas are lost or lose distinction and fairways move. Tom has probably seen some instances where the bad mowing lines were bad original architecture.
But in the case of Pinehurst, where I'd never presume any kind of inattention with #2, this is all -- presumably -- related to the demands of major championships.
Maybe we've come to the point where golf courses are being "bifurcated." Where even changes that make the golf course WORSE are nevetheless needed, in the name of making the course "harder" when players can hit the ball so far.
-
Changing the mowing patterns/narrowing the fairways and not restoring them seems to be a "universal" for preparing for one of the "big shows".
Wonderful courses such as Newport, Merion, Shinnecock, Pinehurst, Bethpage and others have lost much of their original fairway widths.
And for what, four days out of every ten years ?
The concept of horizontal elasticity seems to be undiscovered by the wonderful clubs that let the camel into the tent.
Patrick-
This is the exact way I see it as well. The great old courses that host big events for tour players have become narrower and narrower after each big event.
The USGA, PGA Tour or PGA of America come in and squeeze down the landing areas for the Tour event and then the greens committee or super never take the mowing lines back out to the original widths.
I suppose it makes people feel like the course plays more like "tour conditions"?
Here are a few examples:
Pinehurst #2, Hole 1
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3202/2697135311_b66fd7ebbe_b.jpg)
Merion #4
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3225/2697899760_fffc8ea10e_b.jpg)
Merion #11
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3192/2697908070_4a06738b8a_b.jpg)
Oakmont #9
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3017/2590845257_72dd40647d_b.jpg)
However many of the old great courses that have not held big events still (for the most part) have maintained much of their fairway width (at least the ones that I have played)
Here are a few examples:
Yeamans Hall
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/YH1.jpg)
photo from Ran
Pine Valley #8
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3279/2700733256_5fd868b3a3_b.jpg)
Pine Valley #2
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3109/2700728274_fe918acd99_b.jpg)
Pasatiempo #4
(http://www.pasatiempo.com/mint/pepper/orderedlist/downloads/download.php?file=http%3A//www.pasatiempo.com/web/photos/images/PGC0401-640x427.jpg)
-
If Pinehurst isn't a 10, it's close enough for me. I'll leave the 8,9 10 distinctions to Tom.
As far as bad mowing lines go, Tom knows better than just about all of us that there are many reasons/scenarios in which courses get bad mowing lines. Usually, and Tom has probably seen this in hundreds of golf courses, it is from sloth or inattention from the superintendent or his crew, where greens shrink, chipping areas are lost or lose distinction and fairways move. Tom has probably seen some instances where the bad mowing lines were bad original architecture.
But in the case of Pinehurst, where I'd never presume any kind of inattention with #2, this is all -- presumably -- related to the demands of major championships.
Maybe we've come to the point where golf courses are being "bifurcated." Where even changes that make the golf course WORSE are nevetheless needed, in the name of making the course "harder" when players can hit the ball so far.
These changes aren't the result of inattention. It's because of the Opens. Once the first Open came they never went back.
-
The straits course at Whistling straits is another course that has greatly suffered from this. Since having major championships at this course they have not gone back to the original fairway widths. Here is an aerial of the 6th hole. The ot bunker left of the fairway used to be a center-line hazrad. Zoom out and you'll see that the fairway bunkers are hardly even in play anymore because there is at least 10 yards of fairway betwen the fairway and the gunkers. Also, check the neighbouring Irish course's fairways, which are untouched. it makes you appreciate how narrow the Straits course is now.
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=43.841254~-87.730583&style=h&lvl=18&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1
-
Jeff:
The :some other way" was how Pinehurst #2 was MEANT to be played. That's the point Tom and others -- myself included have made. The issue is that management generally falls back on the tried and true mentality in narrowing courses to the point in which the fundamental character of what made the place grand to start with is now lost for the usual preferred look.
It's long overdue for width to be returned to its past glories -- ANGC and Bethpage Black can also use a bully pulpit beatdown as well.
Matt - I think Jeff understands that. Tom understands that. You understand that. I understand that. A bunch of people here understand that. At the end of the day, we are a minority of the cash flow driving decisions at Pinehurst, which I believe is Jeff's point. The "masses" that go there probably want to play a US Open course.
Tim,
Thanks for that. Hopefully, it will head off another dozen posts by Matt telling me just how much I don't get it. But, hey, even he calls it the "preferred look". So, if its preferred, who is a small minority of golf design geeks to tell the owner of the course what to do, when they have the mortgage and ops expenses to pay?
-
Chip,
There's an interesting dynamic amongst golfers and courses that seek/host U.S. Opens.
Many members take pride in how diabolic their golf course will/has become.
They take delight in humiliating golfers whose abilities aren't commensurate with the course that's presented for PGA Tour caliber golfers.
I don't understand it.
Yes, it's fun to OCCASSIONALLY test your game against the playing field that's been specifically prepared for the best golfers in the world, but, it's no fun to do it day in and day out.
My limited perspective, based on my observations and discussions with members from several clubs that were/are in the Open rota, is that being in the Open rota is what identifies or seperates them from other great courses. It's their "Red Badge of Courage", their "one upmanship" on the others.
And, the price of that perceived lofty position is to maintain, on a daily basis, conditions not to disimilar from tournament conditions.
As a member who would play daily, give me Maidstone, Hidden Creek, Friar's Head, Garden City, NGLA, St George's and other clubs with wide fairways and interesting architecture, with a little wind thrown in, versus, Winged Foot, Baltusrol, Bethpage and others.
Shinnecock could be included, but, they've made SOME strides in returning their fairway widths.
They still need to expand them, hopefully to close to the original acreage.
One of my grave concerns is The Walker Cup setup and the future of NGLA's fairway widths.
Narrowed fairways at NGLA would undermine many of the design principles and the genius of the architecture.
I had hoped, with all the resources available, that ANGC would engage in horizontal elasticity, narrowing and widening their fairways for tournament and non-tournament play.
ANGC has to be viewed in a different light because they host a tournament every year, whereas, the courses I mentioned host an Open once every 10-15 years.
The notion of the average golfer taking pride in playing a golf course, on a daily basis, that's been altered to specifically fit the game of the best players in the world, is insane.
I believe it's a misguided effort to elevate the golf course's/club's stature
-
Jeff:
We are in agreement -- no sense getting too thin-skinned. There won't be a "anther dozen posts" as you mentioned.
I don't doubt that the folks at Pinehurst can run the place as they see fit in terms of "hav(ing) the mortgage and ops expenses to pay." The real issue is do they understand their own history and the rich tradition that comes with ownership. Calling such new layouts with their perverse modern style cuts out of character is certainly something that should be done - no less than other critics who weigh in when people / institutions opt for the quick buck instead of realizing that a good buck and homage to the past can happen.
The greater tragedy is that people who own institutions need to realize a good bit more their stewardship role of such unique and truly historic places.
-
I have never played Pinehurst #2. Just curious if everyone agrees with Tom Doak that it was ever a 10 on the Doak Scale?
Mike
I wasn't a huge fan of Pinehurst on my visit. To be fair, the bad taste in my mouth had as much to do with the course as the mickey mouse atmosphere of the place. Two things which bugged me were the growing in of the fairways (it had just started in prep for the Open that summer) and the overseeding. The course looked bizarre to be honest. A third thing which bothered me a bit were the greens. Mnay seemed to require the same sort of recovery. Its a great idea gone a bit too wild for my tastes - and I will never be convinced that these are how Ross intended them to be. A few things that impressed me was the width (the rough was grwoing in, but it wasn't long) of the place and the idea that shots weren't readily obvious. Herein lies part of the problem. I need to see the course a few more times to get the hang of where to hit the greens from approaches, but I can't ever go back given the prices and terrible atmosphere of the place. It sounds harsh, but if ever there was a place taht needs to go private - Pinehurst is it! Of course, none of this means it isn't as Doak 10 as only Doak decides this. For me, Pinehurst falls considerably short of the very best courses I have seen and I would say it is one of the biggest disappointments I have ever come across.
Ciao
-
Matt,
I didn't mean to get snippy with you! The thing about CCA/Deadman family and the idea that they don't know their history is mostly wrong. They were wildly heraled as bringing the place back including more wire grass, better hotel facility, etc. when they took it over. And, they brought in the Open, long absent at Pinehurst.
So, how to present the course isn't all that cut and dried. I could understand if they looked at everything and decided the decisions to make the course Open ready were as much a part of the courses history as Ross' original platform and design, especially since his design got tweaked over the years.
If Merion "restored" back to 1929-30 (their tournament highlight years) rather than to their 1912 opening, is there a case for P2 to incorporate the look and features of 1999 when Payne Stewart won? We can't necessarily be so myopic as to not recognize when "THESE are the good old days" can we?
Of course, I can believe those who say the basic look and feel of P2 for the 1936 N and S (I think Ross last major remodel, although as Mandell's book shows, changes continued to happen) might be the highlight. But, I can see where others would disagree.
Its just a value judgement in the end, and not one thats ours to make. No harm in letting Pinehurst know our opinion though.
And, as a resort course, I would think they would benefit by wider fw and could easily market it as the way Ross intended, going back to the old charm, etc. more than most, for whom wider fw would just be seen as an excuse for freeway resort golf.
BTW, to answer Tom's original question, I still think its a 10, or at least a 9.75. While I think rankings can and should change over time, I think like boxing, the benefit of the doubt should go to the long time champion!
-
Jeff:
My point was not about Club Corp or the Deadman family. The issue is that Pinehurst sees fit to charge a king's ransom to play the place and the width element is now aborted because of the inane belief that narrow fairways is the golden pathway to ultimate recognition. Somehow someone got amnesia about what made Pinehurst #2 so special in the first place.
Jeff, let me point out that Mike Davis has demonstrated, in such a short time frame, that the so-called model that has been worshiped by the USGA for too long concerning how to prepare an Open site need to follow the same tired and rather scripted fashion in having 25 wide fairways with hay-like rough to every side. There can be different formulas followed and #2 can play such a leading contrary point of view.
My desire is not "myopic" but to be true to oneself in what brought Pinehurst the very acclaim that made it great to start with. There need not be one golden path to what a US Open site must contain. Pinehurst #2 possesses that capacity if in fact the folks running the show understand what made #2 so grand to start with.
-
Jeff Brauer,
I think you raise an important distinction.
P2 is a RESORT course, a DESTINATION course, not a typical, local daily fee or private course.
Visitors/guests want to play THE course that hosted the Open, irrespective of its configuration.
Especially because they won't be playing it every day, as they would on their home course.
-
Chip,
There's an interesting dynamic amongst golfers and courses that seek/host U.S. Opens.
Many members take pride in how diabolic their golf course will/has become.
They take delight in humiliating golfers whose abilities aren't commensurate with the course that's presented for PGA Tour caliber golfers.
I don't understand it.
Yes, it's fun to OCCASSIONALLY test your game against the playing field that's been specifically prepared for the best golfers in the world, but, it's no fun to do it day in and day out.
My limited perspective, based on my observations and discussions with members from several clubs that were/are in the Open rota, is that being in the Open rota is what identifies or seperates them from other great courses. It's their "Red Badge of Courage", their "one upmanship" on the others.
And, the price of that perceived lofty position is to maintain, on a daily basis, conditions not to disimilar from tournament conditions.
As a member who would play daily, give me Maidstone, Hidden Creek, Friar's Head, Garden City, NGLA, St George's and other clubs with wide fairways and interesting architecture, with a little wind thrown in, versus, Winged Foot, Baltusrol, Bethpage and others.
Shinnecock could be included, but, they've made SOME strides in returning their fairway widths.
They still need to expand them, hopefully to close to the original acreage.
One of my grave concerns is The Walker Cup setup and the future of NGLA's fairway widths.
Narrowed fairways at NGLA would undermine many of the design principles and the genius of the architecture.
I had hoped, with all the resources available, that ANGC would engage in horizontal elasticity, narrowing and widening their fairways for tournament and non-tournament play.
ANGC has to be viewed in a different light because they host a tournament every year, whereas, the courses I mentioned host an Open once every 10-15 years.
The notion of the average golfer taking pride in playing a golf course, on a daily basis, that's been altered to specifically fit the game of the best players in the world, is insane.
I believe it's a misguided effort to elevate the golf course's/club's stature
Of course at #2 many of the people are playing once in a lifetime. I certainly understand the owner's potential rationale of keeping it in "U.S. Open" set up all the time because it might be what resorts guests want. It's just a shame for those of who enjoy the architecture.
Pat - I posted this before I got to read your last post before mine.
-
Do people go there because it's a U.S. Open course or because it is one of the top ten courses in America? They used to get plenty of play before the two Opens, didn't they?
-
If Pinehurst isn't a 10, it's close enough for me. I'll leave the 8,9 10 distinctions to Tom.
As far as bad mowing lines go, Tom knows better than just about all of us that there are many reasons/scenarios in which courses get bad mowing lines. Usually, and Tom has probably seen this in hundreds of golf courses, it is from sloth or inattention from the superintendent or his crew, where greens shrink, chipping areas are lost or lose distinction and fairways move. Tom has probably seen some instances where the bad mowing lines were bad original architecture.
But in the case of Pinehurst, where I'd never presume any kind of inattention with #2, this is all -- presumably -- related to the demands of major championships.
Maybe we've come to the point where golf courses are being "bifurcated." Where even changes that make the golf course WORSE are nevetheless needed, in the name of making the course "harder" when players can hit the ball so far.
These changes aren't the result of inattention. It's because of the Opens. Once the first Open came they never went back.
Steve, I hope you understand that I already expressed substantial agreement with you. I don't know if you want to cast special blame on the U.S. Open or the USGA in particular.
But the same kinds of things are being done to courses that host the PGA Championship, the Open Championship and regular tour events all over.
Also, is it not common that with members at clubs hosting major championships, that those memberships are mostly swept away by the notion of their just having the event; the event itself is what validates their view of the course, and few of the members concern themselves with the playable qualities of the course changes? Seems to me that on those occasions on which memberships oppose hosting majors, the conventional wisdom is that those members are just too stuffy, or desirous of their privacy, or unwilling to give up the club for a month, etc.
Almost never do I hear about members at major championship clubs taking the position that the USGA needs to make changes to its equipment regulations before they will make more changes to their courses.
-
Do people go there because it's a U.S. Open course or because it is one of the top ten courses in America?
They used to get plenty of play before the two Opens, didn't they?
Tom Doak,
Having visited and played Pinehurst # 2 over the last 45 years, you can't view your question in the isolated context of "just" the golf course.
Pinehurst # 2, when the Tufts family owned and operated it, was very special, in many ways.
I believe that the pricing model may have been vastly different too.
Once sold, the club went through a series of owners and transitions.
Hosting the Open seemed more like a marketing strategy than a gesture to honor and give back to the game.
I remember golfers staying at Pinehurst for an extended period of time, from days to weeks.
I wonder what the average stay is today.
-
"I believe that the pricing model may have been vastly different too".- Pat Mucci
Yeah, in the '70s you could stay at the resort for two nights, w/three days of golf (including one round on #2) and meals for the princely sum of $106.00 PP.
Yikes! :o
p.s. $106 translates into ca. $405 today
-
Pinehurst has had their up and downs in levels of play just like anywhere else. It pretty much cycles with the economy. At one point in the '90s it seemed like most resort guests were Japanese. I will say that overall since the Opens that Pinehurst in general is a vastly different place. Prior to them there were at most 3-5 chain restaurants. Now, there's pretty much anything you want plus all kinds of big-box stores, etc. IMO, there isn't much doubt that all of this resulted because of the Opens and people buying/building more houses there plus increased resort activity. It's been great for the local economy so I think many people would see the Opens as plus. I think members at Pinehurst would view hosting major tournaments differently than say members of Winged Foot or Oakmont. I don't sense the prestige factor from members at Pinehurst. In fact, many of them would probably rather not have them so they can continue to get their tee times with relative ease and not have resort guests slowing them down. Of course, the marketing aspect of the Opens as a huge reason for the owners to do it and it allowed them to invest significant sums in the resort. It will be interesting to see how much all of this changes in a terrible housing market and slowing economy. Although, Pinehurst is a very inexpensive place to live and a great deal as member. My dad is a member of courses 1-7 and pays monthly dues of $375 - or one round for a walk up on #2 per month.
-
Frankly the hosting of the Open for Pinehurst became a ready made excuse to bump high rates to even higher rates.
No doubt that may not impact a certain % of people but my times of playing #2 were certainly influenced because of this action.
Tom Doak hit the nail squarely on the head -- plenty of people played #2 prior to the '99 US Open and the course was indeed truer to its roots at that time then this inane desire to narrow fairways to the point in which the genesis of the course is rendered a moot point.
I would think the people who run the place understand its history and what made it the shrine for golf that it was. Clearly, that has not happened in the day-to-day execution of what #2 is now.
-
Tom,
It is sad i agree. I played in the north and south amateur this year, and I want to say that there is NOTHING more fun than playing " the deuce" in tournament conditions. by that, i mean that i got to play the back left pin on 14 which was 37 on (green depth 40).... those type of pins= SO MUCH FUN. That being said, there were 3 specific holes that really bothered me in terms of mowing lines. The second hole has already been discussed but 13 and 18 both have drastically changed because drives over the bunkers which were supposed to be "aggressive " now go into rough. The 18th just BEGS for a power fade over the far left side of the bunker on the right. Payne Stewart talked about how he thought his drive was really good on the 72nd hole in 99, and that's because it was. his tee shot( which was 2 yds into the right rough) is the PERFECT angle into that green and is where that fairway used to be. I would HOPE that after the US Amateur this summer, the lines might widen up, since there will be a 6 year gap until the next tournament... One can dream at least...
-
Bryce,
I received an interesting message while watching fellow competitors play # 18 in the North-South many years ago.
I had a rather low trajectory on my drives, which coupled with a slight draw, served me well.
Unfortunately, the right side fairway bunker on # 18 was where I ended up when I slightly pushed or didn't draw my drive.
It was Moss Beecroft who enlightened me as to trajectory when he carried that bunker.
A few years later Frank Hannigan and I were discussing long hitters when he observed/opined that the long hitters had higher trajectories.
The thought of challenging and carrying that bunker only to end up in the rough is unfortunate.
While some may scoff at risk/reward, the fairway bunker on # 18 seemed to epitomize it.
I have a great number of great memories associated with Pinehurst.
Some of which I can't repeat on a public forum.
-
Bryce:
It's not just those three holes you mentioned, either. At #5 you can't drive out to the right to get a flatter lie and a more open angle for the long second shot ... it's rough up there on the flat spot. At #7 a short hitter can't hug the bunkers to try and give himself a shorter approach shot. At #11 you can't drive out to the left to give yourself an angle at the right-hand pin. At #14 you can't drive out past the bunker on the left to get a better angle on the back left hole location. And 18 is just ridiculous.
-
Many seemed to require the same sort of recovery. Its a great idea gone a bit too wild for my tastes - and I will never be convinced that these are how Ross intended them to be.
After several times playing Royal Dornoch #2 and #10 in particular, I think those Pinehurst #2 turtleback greens are what Donald Ross had in mind. "Diabolical" is the adjective that comes most readily to mind.
-
Bill
The 2nd green at Dornoch was actually built (in 1921) over the objections of Ross, who argued for a punchbowl green to the right (where most shots aimed at the present green tend to land!). The 10th was built in 1946, and Ross never saw it. In fact, there are few if any greens at Dornoch that resemble those at Pinehurst.
Rich
BTW--in response to the thread question, I was very underwhelmed the only time I played Pinehurst, partly because I expected something with the design elegance and subtlety of Dornoch, which #2 does not have. If it ever was a "10" it was not so in my lifetime......
rfg
-
The 2nd green at Dornoch was actually built (in 1921) over the objections of Ross, who argued for a punchbowl green to the right (where most shots aimed at the present green tend to land!).
Now see, I knew I loved Donald Ross. If the 2nd had been built as the punchbowl it would have saved me about two strokes a day when we were there!
-
Bryce:
It's not just those three holes you mentioned, either. At #5 you can't drive out to the right to get a flatter lie and a more open angle for the long second shot ... it's rough up there on the flat spot. At #7 a short hitter can't hug the bunkers to try and give himself a shorter approach shot. At #11 you can't drive out to the left to give yourself an angle at the right-hand pin. At #14 you can't drive out past the bunker on the left to get a better angle on the back left hole location. And 18 is just ridiculous.
My post on holes where I'd hit it in the rough for the perfect angle and Tom's post quoted above epitomize why width is so valuable in fairways. Tom seems to prefer to hit it right on #5 to get a flatter lie and better angle since the green angles front right to back left from the fairway. However, this makes the hole play much, much longer. If I hit it right I have anywhere from 3 iron to 3 wood to the green depending on how solid my drive was. So, I like to play it down the left hand side (what formerly was anyway). I don't have the angle, but I've hit as little as 7 iron to the green that way. If you get far enough left the ball isn't that above your feet. And I actually prefer the angle over there as I'm shooting away from the dreaded miss left of that green from which there is no recovery plus the slope in fairway encourages the needed draw into the green.
On 7 when the pin is back right you really need as far left and as far down the fairway as possible. You can't do that anymore. The only time to hit it near those bunkers for me is when the pin is front left.
I agree on 11. Not can you not get the angle but going left allows you to see the green. On the right the bunker short right of the green blocks your view of the green surface just enough to throw you off.
I never really wanted to carry the bunker on 18 because the risk was huge - instant bogey if you didn't make it. However, if you did you almost got a little turboboost and could be left with as little as 8 iron into the green whereas going down the left might leave you a 5 iron.
Damn these new mowing patterns! :-[
-
Steve,
I have generally defending Pinehurst for setting up the course for the their guests like it was set up for the Open, but your example is a good one. My question is, like Matt Ward says, will Mike Davis realize that at least for individual holes fw could be much wider with about equal penalty to rough vs. fw?
I would love to hear from someone in the know how much individual hole review goes into US Open set up. With every fw about the same width, it would be easy to draw the conclusion that an overall mindset kicks in, vs individual hole reviews. They must have some pretty good thinkers out there on the set up committee, no?
-
Barney coined the phrase "hit and run." Could this thread be labeled a "walk and run?"
Just curious.
Mike