[Andy Hughes]

If all this is true and Golf Digest is the only system that uses points for tradition...how does Pinehurst #2 maintain its lofty status at Golfweek...The next thread should be about Oakmont....Where is the flash in that piece.

I suspect it is human nature. We all grow knowing about #2 (or Oakmont for that matter) and seeing US Opens and Ryder Cups held there. This gives these courses a huge leg up on other courses that are more recent or do not have the same history or name recognition.
Raters are human; does everyone really, truly think Augusta National is one of the five best courses in the country, or that it's ranking is enhanced by its long tradition, by the Masters, by its founder. There is no way to strip away people's emotions and their memories when they rank a #2 or an Augusta National.  
Is ANGC, based strictly on its merits as a golf course and divorced entirely of the past 60 years, truly a better course than Pacific Dunes or Sand Hills?

[Matt_Ward]

Before I go off on a few points already raised I laugh when I see people say -- well how would so and so course stand up if it was built today -- it had no pre-existing ocean -- no history -- no tournaments -- yada, yada, yada.

The point is places of quality that "fly below the radar screen" are noticed and part of that is because we can communicate info so much quicker. Look at how Bandon and Pac Dunes have come on the scene -- ditto Friar's Head -- ditto Black Mesa -- and so forth and so on.

Guys -- get over it -- there are places with qualities and yes some do take advantage of them. This is the same "what if" qualities I always hear around 19th holes -- e.g. what if PB had no ocean sort of thing?

So what? Look at the flip side -- Torrey Pines. There you have a course located on some of the most beautiful terrain and what do you get -- a dud of a golf experience. No future US Open is going to change that -- although for the Joe Sixpacks who watch on TV it might.

Scott B:

Beg to differ with your lumping Winged Foot into the discussion. Those who have a keen eye would quickly see the qualities that both courses at Winged Foot have. There isn't the flash -- either off-site beautiful terrain or overdosing of contrived architectural features.

The issue many times is that "difficulty" becomes the focus point because the West has served as a site for US Opens,  a PGA and forthcoming with this year's Amateur and the '06 Open.

The inherent design qualities of both courses is front and center for those who know what they are looking at.

ahughes584:

With all due respect -- you're dead wrong. Pinehurst #2 has plenty of architectural heft and is clearly a good ways beyond being lumped around "#66" as you imply.

I don't doubt there are bandwagon people who elevate courses simply because of their standing in regards to prestigious tournaments hosted. Pinehurst #2 is clearly a layout that maximizes all the points that too often get lost in the sauce today -- how bout the mystery it presents and how only repeated plays expose such things? When you say it "just" possesses a quality golf course -- I believe it is those special qualities that are THE issue why I have returned there for over 25 years.

If people (raters and otherwise) need the bells and hype to wet their playing whistle they simply need to travel down the road and play Tobacco Road or The Pit. If they should want entertainment of the slapstick variety they will certainly be amused.

[JakaB]

 
Is ANGC, based strictly on its merits as a golf course and divorced entirely of the past 60 years, truly a better course than Pacific Dunes or Sand Hills?

Yes...I have not played any of the three but I imagine that if I were the last man left on earth and still had time to play golf in a world without status or others to tell my stories too....I still would choose the Butler Cabin over Bens Porch or a cottage at Bandon.  

[RJ_Daley]

I still would choose the Butler Cabin over Bens Porch or a cottage at Bandon.

Barney, that is fine.  But why?  Is it a personal feeling of the charm amongst the specimen trees and the ambiance of the actual golf course at ANGC?  Does the golf course have more varied shots off the tee, faster more strategically contoured and challenging greens, deeper bunkers, better placed bunkers and hazards?

Obviously, I never played ANGC.  I will - but have not yet played Bandon.  But, I can't imagine that simply matching the golf course features at those two over Sand Hills would result in a clear winner.  Only that they are very different golf courses by their environments.  And, we all have preferences about environment - the look and feel of a place.  All of the above are top quality, and without any publicity or rating service, they would be recognised as among the greatest.  Pinehurst would too, IMHO because as it is played a golfer couldn't help but notice its merits.  

[Andy Hughes]

ahughes584,With all due respect -- you're dead wrong. Pinehurst #2 has plenty of architectural heft and is clearly a good ways beyond being lumped around "#66" as you imply.
I don't doubt there are bandwagon people who elevate courses simply because of their standing in regards to prestigious tournaments hosted. Pinehurst #2 is clearly a layout that maximizes all the points that too often get lost in the sauce today -- how bout the mystery it presents and how only repeated plays expose such things? When you say it "just" possesses a quality golf course -- I believe it is those special qualities that are THE issue why I have returned there for over 25 years.

Matt, I am not doubting or disputing Pinehurst #2's qualities as a golf course. Singing its praises is just preaching to the choir, though, and its not at all the question being discussed. There are numerous quality courses with architectural heft that are not in the top 10 of the rankings, and nor would #2 be if it weren't for its past and its history.  

I put 'just' in quotes to emphasize that being a quality golf course is quite a lot, but to discuss how it would be received if opened today it needs to be judged on 'just' the course itself and not on the Ross pedigree and the Opens and the Ryder Cups. Its no different than my prior comments re ANGC.

[RJ_Daley]

Well then, how did Pinehurst come to have its reputation as one of the nations best golf courses before we had magazine ratings to tell us it is so?  There were other similar-  maybe more senic resort courses like Greenbreir.  While Greenbreir also enjoyed a great reputation, Pinehurst #2 was always thought of as a superior golf course.  People noticed as soon as they were growing decent grass at Pinehurst, which wasn't just right away...

[Matt_Ward]

ahughes584:

As an FYI -- Pinehurst was always a member of the top ten in any of the major publications even when there wasn't fanfare connected to an Open -- e.g. the '99 event. Pinehurst had the architectural heft without the need of any outside event or promotion. Just check old issues of any of the publications (Digest / Golf M) etc, etc.

The great things about Pinehurst was when it recovered from the Dark ages of ownership from Diamond Corporation and was then purchased by Club Corp -- which, I believe, is now looking to sell it.

The issue with Augusta National is completely different. ANGC has sought to bastardize the original spirit of the design to be Tiger proof or some such other silly mechanism. ANGC has become the Michael Jackson of face lifts and that's a true pity simply to worry about the scores from one week.

[Pete Buczkowski]

Let me offer some insight into Pinehurst from another point of view.  Trust me, I am very thrifty and am not a mark for magazines.  When I moved to central NC for graduate work, I thought I would not play #2 because I would be disappointed due to the buildup and cost.  Boy, have my attitudes changed in 4 years.  Every summer, I walked around during the North and South Amateurs.  I quickly came to appreciate everything the course had to offer - the routing, the greens, the angles, etc.  I could write a short book through my study.  It's not because somebody told me it was great - honestly, I almost stayed away from the place because of its acclaim and my assumption that it couldn't live up to that reputation.  Let's just say I'm glad I don't live any closer, because I would have spent more time in grad school so that I could caddy at Pinehurst (for fun, not the money ).


It is somewhat laughable when somebody claims Pinehurst is great due its "past championship history".  For the record, it has held one U.S. Open (currently), one PGA Championship in the 30s, one Ryder Cup in 1951, 2 Tour Championships in the early 90s (which did not reflect well on the course when they were played in August), and one Senior U.S. Open (which again looked bad due to the humid conditions).  They have run a great amateur tournament series for 100 years (the North and South), but honestly, how many golf enthusiasts (a) know about it, and (b) think Pinehurst has a great pedigree because of it?  I bet the vast majority of golfers only think of the U.S Am when thinking about amateur golf.

[A.G._Crockett]

To think that #2 wouldn't be appreciated is to decide that the golfing public has no ability to tell great from good, and good from mediocre.  It might take time for that recognition to come, but most good things do.   This happens in art, music, literature, and any number of other creative endeavours in life.

Any list of top courses is dotted with selections that are an acquired taste, and every great architect began as an obscure architect.  To borrow a phrase, time lets cream rise to the top.

Strip away Ross, the history, the upcoming Open, and everything else, and that golf course will stand on its merits from day one.  It just might take awhile for the word to get out...

[Andy Hughes]

Is ANGC, based strictly on its merits as a golf course and divorced entirely of the past 60 years, truly a better course than Pacific Dunes or Sand Hills?
Yes...I have not played any of the three but I imagine that if I were the last man left on earth and still had time to play golf in a world without status or others to tell my stories too....I still would choose the Butler Cabin over Bens Porch or a cottage at Bandon.

That would be one opinion, and certainly a valid one. But I am fairly sure a sizable number of people, especially on a site like this one, would in their heart of hearts say that they thought Pacific Dunes or Sand Hills is the better course judged strictly on the course.  

[Andy Hughes]

Well then, how did Pinehurst come to have its reputation as one of the nations best golf courses before we had magazine ratings to tell us it is so?

RJ, because its a great course.  Nobody is arguing, as far as I can tell, that it isn't. I have tried to make it clear, that yes, #2 is a quality course.  But quality courses without the incredible locales (like a Pacific Dunes or a Sand Hills) or without a big tournament (like a Muirfield Village or a Harbor Town) built in the last 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 years just are not generally put into the top of the rankings.  
Pinehurst #2 would still be a great course if built today, but I have seen no persuasive reason to suspect it would be anywhere near as highly regarded as it is now.  

[Andy Hughes]

The issue with Augusta National is completely different. ANGC has sought to bastardize the original spirit of the design to be Tiger proof or some such other silly mechanism. ANGC has become the Michael Jackson of face lifts and that's a true pity simply to worry about the scores from one week.

Matt, it hurts to agree, but I fear I must re your comments about ANGC and its changes. Sorry, I will endeavor in the future to ensure it doesn't happen again  
However, I think the general concept is the same.  AGNC is always ranked in the top 5 or so of courses, and I strongly doubt that if the course was built today and opened tomorrow, it would be ranked in the top 5. I feel the same way about #2. If it were built today, it would be a great course for all the reasons listed throughout this thread. But I see no compelling reason to think it would shoot up to its current exalted state.

[JakaB]

ahughes,

I would never underestimate the ability of this site to bash AGNC....I am not qualified for this argument for two reasons...I have not played any of the three courses...and..The last time I speculated about golf after or during a Nuclear Winter some people took it personal.

[Andy Hughes]

I would never underestimate the ability of this site to bash AGNC....I am not qualified for this argument for two reasons...I have not played any of the three courses...and..The last time I speculated about golf after or during a Nuclear Winter some people took it personal.

JakaB. I am fairly new here and was under the assumption that ANGC was an 'Untouchable.'
Re a Nuclear Winter: after food and water was no longer an issue, what would be more important??

[Jim_Kennedy]

Forest Dunes/Mich, The Palmer Course/W Va, Southwood/Fla., Rock Barn/NC, Ravenwood/NY, Rio Grande/Colo, Koasati/LA, Boulder Creek/OH, The Falls/Nev, Shore Gate/NJ,

These are GD's top ten NEW upscale public courses. I haven't played any so I won't comment on them. The only one I've heard anything about is Ravenwood, from some friends who thought it was good but weren't spellbound.

I think it's more than possible that #2 would do well in this group. I'd even suggest that it would be noticed if in the private category, especially after looking at some of the photos on the websites of the Ridge, Dalhousie, Baker Hill and the Reserve.  

[Andy Hughes]

I think it's more than possible that #2 would do well in this group. I'd even suggest that it would be noticed if in the private category, especially after looking at some of the photos on the websites of the Ridge, Dalhousie, Baker Hill and the Reserve.  

Jim, not sure of your meaning. Are you saying that because #2 in your opinion would do well in a Golf Digest Top 10 of the year list, that it would therefore be as highly regarded as the top ten course it now is considered?

[Sandpacker]

No, because:

1. Original architect modifies course for 40 years;

2. Rees redesigns greens___times.

Meanwhile, Rees Ross is lambasted for creating the "Michael Jackson" of golf courses .

[Matt_Ward]

ahughes584:

Pinehurst #2 didn't need any big time events or the pedigree associated with Donald Ross to rise to the level it has -- then or now. The merits are there for those who want to see it.

A.G. Crockett has it right IMHO because #2 would have been noticed no matter what.

I get to play a good deal of the "new" courses listed by the top magazines and clearly the pedigree of #2 would shine forth. No less than the pedigree that people speak about Friar's Head, Sand Hills and the like.

When you say you don't believe #2 would rise to the position it has today -- I believe you are failing to understand that golfers (you, me and others) would certainly look upon such a marvelous design with awe BECAUSE it flies in the face of the crank'em out / spit'em out courses that often dot the landscape today.

Let me mention something about ANGC -- one cannot separate the Masters from the course. They are linked inexorably together. Unfortunately, I can only wish that those running the show there would have understood that the course they are "improving" has gone in the absolute other direction -- all for the sake of "protecting" the course from low scores. How silly indeed that a vintage Mackenzie design be cheapened in such a futile pursuit.

[Jim_Kennedy]

A,
No, I'm saying that this thread questions #2's ability to get noticed if built today. I listed some of the courses that it would have been been up against if built today.

One more example. In '94 GD had WW Pine Barrens course listed as the #1 new resort course, a very good choice in my estimation, but it also had the Rolling Oaks course at WW at #8 that year. I would think that #2 wouldn't go unnoticed if it was built that year.

I think it's a silly notion to think that #2 would go unnoticed if it were built today.    
   

[Andy Hughes]

Pinehurst #2 didn't need any big time events or the pedigree associated with Donald Ross to rise to the level it has -- then or now. The merits are there for those who want to see it.
A.G. Crockett has it right IMHO because #2 would have been noticed no matter what.

Matt, we may be arguing at cross purposes here. I am not in any way criticizing #2. I agree with yours and others passionate arguments as to its merits. My disagreement is with how it would be received if it opened tomorrow.  
A quick look at the GD top 100 shows me that courses in the top 30 or so need to be old, or to host the Memorial.  Sand Hills is ranked around 40 (sorry, I don't recall exactly where but somewhere around 40) and Pacific Dunes around 50. I have not played either of those two, but judging by the commentary here re those two courses, they are superlative and perhaps every bit as good as #2, or at least to the point where competent and honest judges could disagree. Additonally, the have the added advantage of more spectacular locations to go along with great architecture.
So I don't see a reason why #2, if it opened today, would be nearly as highly regarded as it currently is. That is not to say that it wouldn't move up the lists as time went on and the word started to get out.

[Matt_Ward]

ahughes584:

The very success of courses like Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, Bandon Dunes, Friar's Head, etc, etc, demonstrates, at least in my mind, that if a new course of great stature were to come forward today it is possible to crack into the upper echelon of courses.

I understand your point but respectfully disagree.

Clearly, you are looking at the results of the Digest poll and basing conclusions on their results. I have played the courses in question and would easily put Sand Hills among my personal top ten courses. How long do you think it took for the word "to get out" on its merits? Given today's 24/7 real time world it happened almost immediately. Why GD doesn't rate Sand Hills even higher is something only panelists for them and the folks within the magazine can say for sure. I believe they are in error.

In my mind, the pedigree of #2 goes way beyond this fascination you are stuck on with regarding the need for spectacular sites to be recognized.

If someone (rater or otherwise) fails to understand the impact of #2 -- either years ago or now if it opened yesterday -- I suspect that person(s) has failed to see the subtle qualities that are prevalent throughout the design.

Like I said earlier -- given the profusion of fast food golf designs that dot today's landscape the addition of a #2 would clearly be seen for what is no less than what one sees with the legitimate fanfare Sand Hills has already generated IMHO.

[Andy Hughes]

The very success of courses like Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, Bandon Dunes, Friar's Head, etc, etc, demonstrates, at least in my mind, that if a new course of great stature were to come forward today it is possible to crack into the upper echelon of courses.

Oh, I agree that it is possible for a new course to crack the list. But what I don't see happening is that a new course on more pedestrian grounds than the spectacular dunesland of Pacific Dunes or Sand Hills make a top 10 or 20 or so opening. I do not mean to imply I think it should be that way, but it is that way

Clearly, you are looking at the results of the Digest poll and basing conclusions on their results. I have played the courses in question and would easily put Sand Hills among my personal top ten courses. How long do you think it took for the word "to get out" on its merits? Given today's 24/7 real time world it happened almost immediately. Why GD doesn't rate Sand Hills even higher is something only panelists for them and the folks within the magazine can say for sure. I believe they are in error.

Well, yes, I guess I am basing it on GD's list. I may be wrong for that, but I am not sure how else to judge how well a course is received or how it is perceived to stand amongst its peers. I'll readily admit there may be other, better ways if you can suggest them.

In my mind, the pedigree of #2 goes way beyond this fascination you are stuck on with regarding the need for spectacular sites to be recognized.

Its not so much a fascination as a realization after looking at the list that new courses generally either need to have a spectacular site or host a tournament. Again, I am not agreeing with that, but saying it seems to be the way it is. I just don't see any new courses opening up that are not stunning to look at that shoot to the top. Perhaps #2 would be the exception to that rule. I would be more inclined to agree with that if there were several other courses on more average land that did attain the rankings that #2 currently has.
Also, I don't believe you can't stand #2's pedigree up against other courses' sites as a way to neutralize that edge, and then say #2 can stand on its architectural merits alone. But I may have misunderstod your point there.
Man, all this talk and all this warmer weather makes me want to head to Pinehurst this evening...

Andy

[Matt_Ward]

My point about Pinehurst #2 is that despite having land that may not be "awesome" or with "jaw-dropping appeal" the inherent merits of the course are overwhelmingly there. Look at other courses that are well placed within the elite courses -- e.g. Winged Foot / West and Oakmont to name just two, both do not have land sites that foster the primary interest in their greatness. I would gather that one could say that both Winged Foot / West and Oammont are on pedestrian ground but simply rose above it primarily because of the sheer brillance of their respective designs.

Adam -- too many people -- possibly you as well -- may get swept up by the atmospherics and lose sight of the primary focus -- the design attributes that make for an 18-hole tour de force experience.

I simply believe that if quality courses are produced -- they will be noticed. I do concede that courses on dead flat land will have a much harder time (see much of Florida as one example) because the ebb and flow of land adds to the characteristics of the golf experience.

Adam -- the Digest is simply one source. Do you not read more than one newspaper -- look at more than one TV station. Or do you simply "assume" that one publication / source is the be-all end-all for what takes place? I don't -- it's likely you don't either.

I'll say this again -- the notion that a course must have a spectacular site or tournament to be noticed as a superior golf design doesn't hold water for me. Many of them will have unique locations and clearly land is a factor but it's not the sole equation to greatness. If people are making decisions based on that narrow application it's clear they're missing out on those designs that have plenty of unique aspects that are just below the visible surface.

In short -- what Pinehurst #2 may "lack" for spectacular land it possesses in abundance the design and strategic flair that very few courses can ever hope to achieve IMHO. By the way -- have you ever played the course? And, if you have -- how many times?

The reason why I say this is that the general impression of many people who play #2 is for bewilderment on why it's rated so highly. I went to college in the Carolinas and had the good fortune to play #2 about 25-30 times over four years. It continually got better with each and every play IMHO.

[Brian_Gracely]

aside from viewing large dunes or crashing waves, I'd argue that there are few courses more enjoyable to walk or be around than Pinehurst #2.  Granted the views on Monterey are breath-taking, but I get similar emotions and enjoyment walking under the Carolina blue skies and inhaling the smells of the Carolina pines.  

For that, people would find the course....just like they did back at the turn of the 20th century.

[Andy Hughes]

I would gather that one could say that both Winged Foot / West and Oammont are on pedestrian ground but simply rose above it primarily because of the sheer brillance of their respective designs.

Yes, I would agree, and I would say they would have the exact same issues as #2 initially in the rankings.  That is not a comment on their merits, but what I see as the way the rankings seem to work

Adam -- too many people -- possibly you as well -- may get swept up by the atmospherics and lose sight of the primary focus -- the design attributes that make for an 18-hole tour de force experience.

Again, I agree, but that seems to be the way it works. I have tried to make clear that I am not endorsing or criticizing it, but merely commenting on the way the rankings seem to work.

I simply believe that if quality courses are produced -- they will be noticed. I do concede that courses on dead flat land will have a much harder time (see much of Florida as one example) because the ebb and flow of land adds to the characteristics of the golf experience.

And again Matt, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I am sure #2 would be noticed. But I see no reason, based on the facts before us and the experience of other top courses that it would be as well regarded as it is now.

I'll say this again -- the notion that a course must have a spectacular site or tournament to be noticed as a superior golf design doesn't hold water for me.

This seems to be a disturbing trend, but I agree with you. But, again, if you look at course rankings for lack of a better way to judge how courses are perceived, then a new course better have either a great setting or a tournament or it just won't be ranked as high as #2 is today or anywhere near it.  I am not saying that is just or fair, but by all means, look at the lists and please see the dearth of new courses at the top.

By the way -- have you ever played the course? And, if you have -- how many times?

Played #2 once, and Pacific Dunes and Sand Hills not at all.

Andy (or Adam if you prefer )

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()