Too subtle to be recognized as great?

[ian]

I just read the entire "Pinehurst Hearsay" thread with my mouth open in stunned amazement.

It must be something to do with the evolution of "photogenic golf" that has tarnished the reputations of courses like Pinehurst #2. Does everyone needs to be wowed by ocean fronts or dramatic tee shots off of cliffs or heroic carries over quarrys. Does it have to be 18 completely different challenges to keep your interest? What happened to the loving a simple and well designed golf course.

I read that someone felt that #2 was boring and repatative?
Other simply didn't see its greatness. My heads still spinning, I thought the course to be the most consistant and well conceived designs I have ever played. The course has more "options" than any other course I have played. Options make the great golf, and test the mental make up of a player.
Being forced to playing to a one well defined target makes for simple golf. Boring golf. Pinehurst's options are set up to test the best you have, but also allows a much less aggressive route to avoid most of the difficulty. Of course you will have to conceed strokes along the way. The greatness of Pinehurst is how fiercly it punishes a player who will not conceed a stroke and tries to play the "imaculate shot" (I imagine this is the souce of frustration from some). If you play the course more than once, you come to realize Pinehurst is more a test of management than of shotmaking. To emphasise this, my father broke 80 without even trying to hit half the greens. He simply conceeded where he felt he should to score. Your score becomes more about where you avoid, as opposed to the shots you pull off. I was more aggressive and had both the only birdie and all the triples.

Pinehurst is incredibly subtle in its test and in its beauty.
It remind me of similar course, Muirfield. Muirfield is not a beautiful seaside property, like many others in the UK, but is strategicly a masterpiece. Muirfield is another course that does not generate the praise it deserves. There are more comments about Cruden Bay and other such spectatcular sites. But Muirfield will always be a better course.

Ask any architect and they would tell you they wished they would have designed either course, rather than some of the more spectacular course that generate more praise

My frustation comes from the thought that if golfers aren't visually blown away, they come away underwhelmed. I'm worries that a subtle piece of great architecture will always lose out to a spectacular looking piece of fluff.

[Jeff Mingay]

Not in the long run, Ian.

[Matt_Ward]

Ian:

Amen to your thoughts about #2, unfortunately many people, some on GCA, are influenced by photos instead of actually playing the course to see (with their own eyes ) the qualities that truly exist.

Personal due diligence is the only way to go in my book.

[TEPaul]

Matt:

Now you've really got it wrong! We can all spot "photogenic" holes and courses in photos--that's exactly what Ian is saying the problem may be--some courses may be nothing more than photogenic presentations and that's what too many people think is a must to be any good. When we see courses like Pinehurst #2 that clearly isn't photogenic in photos then we really do know something good must be going on!

Photos are infallible to the trained photographic eye. Because you and Pat don't have a trained photographic eye you should stop insisting we actually go play a course. If a course doesn't look "photogenic" in a photo then I'll go play it but if it does I'd perfer to just look at it. (How do you do the smiley face?).

Pat just got at least one restored eye so there's hope for him! Want me to recommend a laser eye surgeon for you? We have a bunch of really good ones in this town.

[J_Olsen]

Matt,

How many times are you going to implicitly point out that you play more courses than many of the rest of us do? Good for you. Congratulations. I think I have read your "play the course, then comment" remark about 100 times. Enough, already. Please. In many instances you are directing this remark at people who HAVE played the course in question...and if somebody wants to comment based on what they know, however they know it, it can still have a great deal of validity. I fell extremely qualified to comment on Hirono, even though I have never seen it, thanks to the wonderful post of photos of all 18 holes.

[Tim Weiman]

J Olsen,

I don't mind Matt Ward encouraging people to play courses before expressing strong opinions. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with that, in my opinion.  Indeed, following Matt's advice can help build credibility for Golfclubatlas.com.

However, Pinehurst simply isn't a course that everyone will be thrilled with just because they go play it.  A small percentage of golfers are architecture junkies and many will miss or fail to appreciate Pinehurst's subtlelies.

If you are struck in an office all week, courses that make a powerful visual impression will always go over big.

[Dave_Miller]

Ian:
Pinehurst #2 is one of the great archetectural designs in golf.  Having played the course at least a dozen times I truly appreciate what it is.  However it simply is not what it used to be.  The last round I played there in OCt. 2001 was disappointing for a lot of reasons:  Poor conditioning, attitude of the resort staff, amount of play, etc.  This is not good for a course at this level of greatness.  It was not the same experience it had been in earlier years.  Much of this I blame on those running the place.  
This has nothing to do with Ocean bluffs or photos.  I think it is very hard to comment without playing a course or at least walking it.
I'm saddened for the direction Pinehurst #2 is taking.

Fairways and Greens,

Dave  

[Matt_Ward]

J Olsen:

I have never said I play more courses than just about anyone else. I do say that reviewing courses, in my mind, deals with the due diligence of the person in taking the time to actually play or at the minimum walk the actual grounds. That's my opinion -- If you and TEPaul believe you can do that by simply looking at photos more power to you and your innate ability.

Tim Weiman touched on the issue of credibility and I believe when I play a course I have a degree of credibility more so than most people who've never played it. If you don't like the fact that I have mentioned this countless times so be it. I have never directed the on-site preference to people who have actually played a course in question. It has been at people who have stated they are capable of reviewing facilities WITHOUT ever having played or walked the grounds in question. I disagree with that.

One last question -- when you gentlemen purchase a car do you simply make the purchase based on some picture in a styled brochure or do you actually make a point of taking an actual test drive. I do the latter but maybe you feel comfortable doing the former.

P.S. Dave Miller: I'm planning on playing Pinehurst #2 again in the next few months. Can you outline any specific beyond what you mentioned regarding the conditioning. Was it on a few holes -- the greens overall -- any info would be much appreciated. Thanks!

[TEPaul]

Matt:

I don't really think I or anyone else can understand anywhere near as much about a course by looking at photos as opposed to playing the course--not at all! I'm joking about that--if you haven't realized that!

What I do disagree with, however, and vehemently so, is when someone like Pat Mucci occasionally tells us we can't see the things in photos anyone can clearly see!

In those cases we were talking about things like the "look" of containment mounding and such--not much to do with how the course played but clearly an architectural question and concern. In those cases he did say that we had no right to say those things without going to the course or playing it.

That's patently ridiculous to some of us when something is as clear in a photo as it would be if you went there and stood on it!

That's the only distinction I make!

[ian]

Since a camera flattens what we see, how can anyone trust a photo. Also with careful framing a good photographer can make most pieces of crap look good. I agree with Matt, although Bruceski's photo collection was as close as I have felt to knowing a course from a distance.

Dave,
I guess I have never stepped on a course and give a damn about the service or the conditiong because I'm always focused on shapes and strategies. I guess Pinehurst realy wasn't in the best shape last time I was there now I take time to look at my photos, but the design is still the same it was 10 years before (the last time I was there). Does the change of grasses ruin it? As Matt would quickly advise, I need to play it to have an opinion.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Certain people see things as black and white. When Paul Turner posts a couple photographs of The Bridge and asks for comments, and receives honest comments which are opposed to certain few's views it is regarded as judging a golf course without playing it. Did those commenting render a judgement of the golf course - no, they simply commented on what they saw in the photos. (It is interesting that their comments have been confirmed by those who've played the course and the original outlandish playing appraisals have been found to be well off the mark)

Based on aerial photo I documented the numerous changes made my Rees Jones at Bethpage, did I ever express an evaluation of the golf course - no. Did I express an evaluation of the accuracy of the restoration - yes. I don't recall anyone disputing my facts - instead the resort to saying you have no right to judge the course you have no played. I deliberately avoided judging the course and only documented the changes.

What do these two cases have in common?

When you are unable to comment on the details (like those seen in photos) or you are totally unfamilar with a golf courses history or an architect's history or an architect's architecural tendancies it is easy to simply claim the person commenting has no right to comment - case closed.

Some golf courses are too subtle for photography. Some golf courses are too subtle for those playing them. I think the well trained eye can find subtlety in golf courses and in photos of golf courses.

[GeoffreyC]

Tom - you can comment on photos all you want. However, you commented on APPROACH SHOTS on the black course and how repetitive they are and how the ones you claim are most like Tillinghast original seem to PLAY better.  That's where I draw the line and say you're full of it.  

You sit there with those photos- ground level and the 1938 aerial I presume.Lets get them posted! Come on now and share with us the data that you have- send them to Tommy or me and we'll get it done pronto


To the point of the topic.- I've PLAYED pinehurst #2 before and after the changes to the greens.  I liked it better before.  Its my opinion based on playing the course.  I agree with the comments about the resort as well.  They won't get my business again.  I'd rather play Plainfield day in and day out.  Its my opinion based on playing each course more then once.

[Mike_Cirba]

Geoffrey,

If I understand what Tom MacWood was saying, I believe he was alluding to the fact that he would love to submit a rating for Bethpage Black based on having actually played it, and possibly intends to get out there sometime this year.  

Am I reading you correctly, Tom?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mike
Yes, you're correct.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Geoffrey
I commented on how similar some of the approach shots looked, it was difficult to differentiate many of them - I was responding to Mike's question.

You're entitled to your opinion that I'm full of it. My goal was never to denegrade Bethpage or to claim it wasn't a suberb golf course. My goal was only to bring light to what was done to the course and wasn't done. You are free to defend the changes made and I am free to be disapointed that Tillinghast was ignored. By the way I agree with your stance at Yale.