Does anyone think Pinehurst's greens are too tricked up?

[Pete Lavallee]

My goodness, some of you guys would find fault with $.05 cigars and $.10 beer! The greens at #2 certainly required shotmaking, just because there are only a handfull of players who can hit the modern ball at the center of the green and work it towards the pin doesn't mean that that wasn't the best way to attack those flags. Having the correct angle to attack the hole was critical also; my only complaint was the narrow USGA fairways, I've seen B roads in the UK that are wider, made it difficult to plays these angles as intended. Many players also ran the ball on the green when in the deep rough; some even ended up a with reasonable chance at birdie. With the number of people I saw coming up well short of the hole earlier in the week I find it hard to say the greens were rolling too fast. Every year we hear the moaning about only L-wedge recoveries from deep rough; this year's options from around the green were fascinating to watch. I thought it was great stuff.

[michael j fay]

The greens at Pinehurst #2 are unlike any others that I have played. I have been a member there since 1990 and I know that the greens were rebuilt twice using a computer model that allowed the Architects to duplicate them to the greens of 1990. I do not know what happened before 1990 so the top-dressing theory might make some sense. If the greens were top-dressed to the present configurations, then the surrounds (the mounds around the greens) were also raised by this process because they have the same type of lead-in to the surfaces that I have seen in many Ross designs. The only Ross course that I have ever seen that has greens raised significantly by top-dressing is the Brunswick CC in Georgia, where the greens have been raised and are way out of kilter with the surrounds. I see none of that at # 2.

I thought the set-up was demanding but fair. Soft shots were the order of the day. Aggressive pin-seeking was both rewarded and abashed depending on the accuracy of the striker. Holes like # 5 and # 15 were boarded in regulation unlike the 1999 tourney. Numerous well conceived, well executed shots ended close to the pins. Aggressive putting caused some consternation. Solid short putting was at a premium.

Overall, I say the Championship was played on a well groomed, fair and exciting venue and the guy who hit it best, putted best and held it together the longest won.

[Brent Hutto]

Overall, I say the Championship was played on a well groomed, fair and exciting venue and the guy who hit it best, putted best and held it together the longest won.

Well said. Any course that will let the USGA set it up to produce a thrilling Open and then with a little mower work be returned to a normal setup where any one of us can have an enjoyable and challenging round is a great course, IMO.

I did not like seeing the fairway bunkering out of play but other than that it was fun to watch and no fun to play in, the definition of a national championship.

[Don Dinkmeyer]

An issue that doesn't seem to be addressed, yet -- if the only thing about this course that makes it "tough" is the green's severity, does that make it a great course?

That's the impression i get - I've never played #2.

Great courses tend to have a combination of "greatness factors", do they not?

Ears open...

[michael j fay]

Dan:

The way the greens sit makes a major amount of difference. To attack certain pins the right angle must be garnered on the tee shot. Of course the course itself changes dramatically when the better players hit the ball 325-350 off the tee. Then a well executed lob wedge can go nearly anywhere on the surface. I marveled about where they hit it on some of the par four holes. These holes are much longer than the original design but when the course was designed they were driver four iron.

Look at number two. This hole played around 430 in 1990 and a well struck drive could get a very good player to seven iron distance. These guys were hitting 9 iron and wedges to the green and they played it at 467.

Number 5 was an impossible hole in 1990 at 425. At 472 they were playing six and seven to the green this past weekend.

The rough was tough and the fairways were pinched severly, much moreso than I have ever seen before at Pinehurst. During regular play with wider fairways and softer greens the amateur faces a plethora of obstacles in playing the course as far as angles of approach are concerned. These elements disappear to a good degree to the monster bombers of the US Open field.

# 2 is truly a great test of golf for golfers of all levels. The greens get highlighted when the best in the world compete.

[Rick Shefchik]

I tend to apply the WWHD principle -- What Would Hogan Do?

When the question of shotmaking was raised, my first thought was, yes, this was a course that would not favor a Ben Hogan, and is that what we want from the U.S. Open?

But on further thought, I think Pete has it right: every hole required great shotmaking -- just not at the flag. Hogan would have known that; he was the one who never fired at the flag, or the green, at ANGC's #11, contententing himself with a chip shot from the front right in order to take the water totally out of play. He might not have been the best wedge player or putter who ever played the game, but he was apparently good enough to handle a course with no-go hole locations. He made the fewest mistakes and gave himself the most birdie putts.

I think Hogan would have done fine at Pinehurst last week, and I think he would have approved of the course.

 

[Tony Ristola]

Pete: You hit on a question I wanted to ask: Roughly how often percentage wise was the course set up to prevent the field from picking a good line of attack to the hole?

[Willie_Dow]

Playing in the 61st Annual North and South Amateur on Monday, April 24, 1961, at 7:52 with Ron Drimak and Jack Matthews, Jr., shooting an 83 with a snow man on No. 14 - which removed me from the match play - I remember the open-ness of the fairway approach angles.  And I loved it !

The greens were the same as I saw last weekend, and I loved them, too.

What a great contribution to golf Pinehurst remains !

[JESII]

I think shotmaking was taken out of the game, making the short game the entire determining factor.
For example, I saw many good shots on hole 15 land on the green at the pin and trickle back off the front, leaving a difficult uphill pitch shot.   Whereas, the winner hit a low pull hook, 20 yards short of the green in bunker.   Of course he hit a magnificent bunker shot, which he did all week, and made par whereas many of the players that hit good shots off the tee made bogey.  
I also saw many shots land right at the pin on holes and trickle off the back of the greens.    My point is that regardless of whether you hit a good approach or not, you were going to have some type of "up and in" shot left.
Therefore, shotmaking was taken out of the game for everyone.   Only the shortgame wizard could win that US open.
Yes, Cary, the greens were over the top.   Just like most US Open green setups are.

Do you think a tour balata would have been a better choice for some of these guys?

I do.

[Pete Lavallee]

Tony,

I know you've got game, but trying to hit the right half of a 20 yard wide fairway seeems an awefully difficult task. If the fairways were wider and the player secured the correct angle, he would then feel like he could fire at the flag. I think we would have seen just as much, if not more tradgedy with this freedom. You're quite right though, the times I really noticed that a player had a good angle in was when he was in the rough, but still within the outside edge of the fairway bunker. The USGA didn't give the players enough rope to hang themselves with at #2.