Would anybody notice?

[Tom_Doak]

Would anybody notice?  Yes, there are some people who would.  But I don't believe Pinehurst No. 2 would ever be rated nearly as highly as it is today, if, say, Jerry Matthews was touched by the hand of God and built it tomorrow.

Now, do not misunderstand me.  Pinehurst No. 2 is one of a dozen golf courses in the world that gets a "10" in The Confidential Guide, and I haven't changed my mind there.  I think it's completely unique, and that is why I rate it so highly.

But I don't think No. 2 is for everyone.  I think there are a lot of raters who don't really like it that much, and are simply afraid to rate it as low as they really feel, for fear they won't be taken seriously anymore.  [I know of one or two ex-GOLF Magazine panelists who felt that way ... they didn't rate it in the top 50, but they didn't put it out of the top 200 which is what they really thought.]  There are some people who think it's all the same ... who cannot see the variation of the theme from one green complex to the next.

My proof is this:  that there are hardly any architects out there trying to build anything like Pinehurst No. 2.  All the guys my age are trying to build "Pine Valley on steroids," with 200 sexy bunkers.  When was the last time you saw a modern course with bunkers as subtle as Pinehurst No. 2?

They aren't building them because they are convinced that no one would notice.

[paul cowley]

yes tom ,i would agree that there are hardly any architects out there trying to build anything like pinehurst #2.....but there are a few still building them regardless of the 'notice' factor.....who are still willing to sacrifice the 'wow' feature in favor of more subtile play strategies.

...that being said, there are places i've found myself when missing at #2 that are anything but subtile  .......i guess thats the charm of the place.

[brad_miller]

All I know is that the first time I played number 2 I knew by the second green I was playing one of the worlds best. All this pre GCA.com and my wonderful golf book architecture library. For me it is there with the 10 best courses after the top 5 or so.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Jaka B,

You've misunderstood the question.

What I am asking is if built today would anybody notice?  No tradition, no Ross, no US Open in the books, no Hogan, Snead and the guys having played there and loved it...just a guy today, with a limited budget plying his trade and coming up with the product.  Let's say it was built next to Tobacco Road...would people rave about No.2?  Or would it be over shadowed by TR?  Would people understand...even the raters...the stuff going on?  Would they even make time to visit or would the go to TR with No.2 not even being on the map?

I have not played #2, but wouldn't Kinloch fit this profile? It was Lester George's first "rater recognized" course. It has similar terrain to #2. It was built for US Amateur type competitions due to Vinny Giles. Some very interesting greens. My guess is Kinloch has more options off the tee. Again, I have only seen a few holes at #2.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom Doak:

"They aren't building them because they are convinced that no one would notice."

To a degree you're right Tom. The folks who don't really notice are the ones fronting the $$$ to build the courses in the first place.

Too many people have been weaned on the big budget empty design layouts that dot the landscape. I am sure that is one reason why your phone rings frequently because certain people (God Bless them!) have grown weary with the same tired courses being continually produced. Amen for that.

Architects have been instructed by the folks paying the bills to deliver such courses and therefore the qualities / substance of a #2 don't make the final cut for many developments.

Unfortunately, too many of the new courses have been created by architects who have been told by developers that they need big and bold results -- hint a profusion of silly bunkers and even weirder designed gimmicks or you get the flip side -- the dumbed down version of big circular disc greens with matching flanking bunkers -- including the obligatory ponds that provide the pro forma cookie-cutter look. How dreadful!

Pinehurst #2 unlocks its secrets to those who want to take the time to see the many folds and unique angles that the course produces. Of all the top courses I have ever played the unique characteristis that make up #2 don't grab you by the throat and say -- look here for greatness!

I personally believe for anyone to understand #2 a person will likely need a few rounds to grasp the qualities it exudes.

Many raters / reviewers sometimes only have a one course visit and it is possible that the fanfare attached to #2 would take a little bit longer to be noticed. But, given today's 24/7 real time information age there are few courses of substance that simply have not been noticed.

Adam --

The dearth of new courses at the top speaks to what I initiated in my response to Tom's comments. The folks fronting the $$ sometimes thing that the big and garrish style is what wins the day.

However, when unique substance courses are brought forward they are noticed (e.g. Sand Hills, Pac Dunes, Friar's Head, Black Mesa, etc, etc).

Part of the problem stems from raters / reviewers who are simply hell bent in confining themselvs to the same courses -- how bout treking off the road and seeing what else lies around the next corner? There are young architects who are doing some interesting things but one won't find them if you simply play the top tier courses in say Westchester or Nassau or Suffolk counties.

If people do bother to trek through the USA you might be surprised to see that low key courses can win the day -- it just takes a bit of effort for those "in the know" to visit them and spread the word.

[SPDB]

Matt - I think your post responding to Tom Doak proves too much.

It describes the essence of what I was trying to say in agreeing with Tony. I don't think anyone argues that PH#2 is not top flight, but, as you concede, it is very, very subtle and likely wouldn't be singled out by today's golfing public if it were quietly designed, opened and operated.

But no one is saying it is not top notch architecture, or, stated positively in your terms it is "beyond" nearly every course in America.  

[Andy Hughes]

However, when unique substance courses are brought forward they are noticed (e.g. Sand Hills, Pac Dunes, Friar's Head, Black Mesa, etc, etc).

Matt, it keeps coming back to Sand Hills or Pacific Dunes.  Please notice, you can't list courses that are highly ranked that were built in the last 30 years that do not have a site that makes your jaw meet your chest.

The dearth of new courses at the top speaks to what I initiated in my response to Tom's comments. The folks fronting the $$ sometimes thing that the big and garrish style is what wins the day.

Or perhaps it speaks to a problem with course rankings instead, which I think much more likely. There have been 'big and garish' as well as 'small and stylish' built the last 30-40 years, and yet virtually none of it is as highly regarded as the old reliables that are always in the top 30 or 40 slots.
And as I said previously, I see no evidence that #2 would be the one glaring exception to the rule.
Cheers,
Andy (still not Adam  )

[Matt_Ward]

Andy (mea culpa with your first name):

You want a better name -- try The Golf Club in New Albany, OH -- the site is simply OK with a bit of roll but far from the ocean hugging layouts that seem to get plenty of ink.

The Golf Club is a top ten layout in my mind and often flies below the radar screen because of it exclusivity. It would be highly rated anytime in my book because of the architectural elements that Pete Dye provided.

The great courses that made it from years gone by had the following going for them:

1). Great designers who thoroughly understood golf

2). Superior land that few modern sites can equate or surpass because of cost, environmental issues or a combination thereof.

Building those type of course today would prove to be a much more demanding process.

Nonetheless -- Pinehurst #2 still would be noticed by those who have the eyes to do it IMHO.



 

[Andy Hughes]

Nonetheless -- Pinehurst #2 still would be noticed by those who have the eyes to do it IMHO.

Maybe Matt, this is where we have missed each other. I would agree that #2 would be 'noticed' by the that smaller group who truly appreciate what it has to offer.  But that is a long, long way from it debuting today and being regarded as a Top Ten or Top Twenty course.  

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

I see it differently than you because there are way too many people who are swayed by the off-site elements that have little to do with the on-course architectural merits.

Pinehurst #2 is not "discovered" by those seeking out the outlandish bells'n whistles themes that come from many places.

You might as well say the same thing about TOC -- the qualities are there at both -- if you know what you're looking for and at IMHO.

[Andy Hughes]

see it differently than you because there are way too many people who are swayed by the off-site elements that have little to do with the on-course architectural merits.

That would seem to argue against you though; if what you say above is true, then it again is another reason to think a #2 built today would not achieve a ranking as high as it curerntly has.

You might as well say the same thing about TOC -- the qualities are there at both -- if you know what you're looking for and at IMHO.

Now that you mention it, I am not at all sure that if TOC was built/created tomorrow it would be considered one of the finest courses in the world either. And I say that as someone whose favorite days were spent playing there.
Sure, those who appreciate all it has to offer would eventually play there and would regard it highly; but I don't think there's any way a TOC built today would ever ascend as high in the rankings as it has.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

You keep saying Pinehurst #2 would not be noticed or rated as high. My question to you is simple? Who are you referring about? If you're talking just about Joe Sixpack or people who need the Cecil B Demille production than it would not fare as well. I mean Andy -- if you let the folks who chime in with reviews that are published by Digest in their "Places to Play" book I don't doubt that such an exalted position would not be forthcoming since a good number of those folks believe The Monster at The Concord is a classic must play layout!

Those with discerning eyes would understand what #2 offers and I believe if they were the ones doing the rating it would be just as high as it is today -- if not even higher. Ditto with TOC.

[Andy Hughes]

You keep saying Pinehurst #2 would not be noticed or rated as high. My question to you is simple? Who are you referring about? If you're talking just about Joe Sixpack or people who need the Cecil B Demille production than it would not fare as well. I mean Andy -- if you let the folks who chime in with reviews that are published by Digest in their "Places to Play" book I don't doubt that such an exalted position would not be forthcoming since a good number of those folks believe The Monster at The Concord is a classic must play layout!
Those with discerning eyes would understand what #2 offers and I believe if they were the ones doing the rating it would be just as high as it is today -- if not even higher. Ditto with TOC.

Ditto
I agree, I really. Discerning eyes would understand and appreciate.

But when the GD Top 100 came out, or any of the other lists came out, that always have essentially the exact same 30 or 40 courses in almost the same 30 or 40 spots, with nary a course built since the 50s, it is hard for me to see how a course that has architectural merit but doesn't reach out and grab you (like a Pacific Dunes) could manage to jump into that closed society.  
I haven't played there, but when I see Sand Hills move into the top 10 or 12 then I will think that a new course could get that high.  But I still won't think a new subtle course could ever attain such a high rank, especially one that I don't think really appeals to everyone like a Sand Hills does.
Those are the people I am referring to.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

How bout the simple answer -- that very, very few courses have come into existence that merit such a high position! Just realize that I believe a good number of those at the very
top -- let's say for argument sakes the top 50 -- have lived off their reputation long enough. Unfortunately, many people simply make the a-s-s-u-m-p-t-i-o-n that such and such course(s) need to always be at the top.

The due diligence of the people "in the know" is really the issue here.

Andy -- if raters are sucked into the belief that you need all the bells and whistles then the fault resides with the raters.

To borrow Tom Paul's line about the wide world of architecture -- a subtle course on decent but not spectacular land can still be noticed by those who have the wherewithal to notice such layouts. I'm always on the lookout for a range of golf designs that don't fall into the neat package of having to be some big time production with off-course views but lacks on the more critical ingredient -- on course design quality.

[Andy Hughes]

How bout the simple answer -- that very, very few courses have come into existence that merit such a high position! Just realize that I believe a good number of those at the very  top -- let's say for argument sakes the top 50 -- have lived off their reputation long enough. Unfortunately, many people simply make the a-s-s-u-m-p-t-i-o-n that such and such course(s) need to always be at the top.

Funny. I actually asked your opinion a few minutes ago elsewhere if indeed you thought it likely that the last 30-40 years have in reality not produced any of the 30 or so bets courses in the US.

[ian]

Tom said, "My proof is this:  that there are hardly any architects out there trying to build anything like Pinehurst No. 2"

I found it interesting that the first course I ever did was a tribute to Pinehurst #2. I went down to the course and walked it backwards to learn the greens and there effect on the rest of the course. I tried to build something comaparable at home.

I still think its the perfect design. Its difficult to shoot your handicap if your good or very good, but quite possible to break your handicap if its higher and you choose not to try attack the course.

If it were opened today it would be meet with praise, Rustic Canyon did (which I also really like), and Pinehurst is a far superior golf course.

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:  Did that course of yours attract much attention from the magazines?

Matt:  The Golf Club is ranked for two reasons.  First, it became known in the late sixties when it was as different from everything else as Tobacco Road is today.  Second, it keeps its lofty position because many believe it is Pete  Dye's best course in the U.S. (not including Casa de Campo).

The Golf Club without Pete Dye's name today would have the same impact as Pinehurst No. 2 without Donald Ross's tenure.  Which is to say, not nearly as much.  

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

Just because something is "different" doesn't make it great or have to be sought out as a "must" play.

Your point suggest that the "name" of the designer is the key ingredient. I don't but that 100%. I don't doubt that clearly the people you are speaking about (e.g. Pete Dye / Donald Ross) are among the all-time great designers but I don't visit courses simply because of the name of the designer -- if I hear some excellent rumblings about a course and it was designed by Bozo the Clown I'd still want to see it and if merited rate it as high as its merits would take it.

People who simply play or venture to courses because of who designed the layout may be in for a surprise and it may not always be one that is stellar.

[ian]

Tom,

No, but its not nearly as good, and frankly was not as interesting as other courses that got attention. The one thing I enjoy is that anyone who plays it says it's a great deal of fun. That's all I set out to do, was make a fun course.
(of note: the site had no elevation change and no trees in a housing project)

Its still the model that I like most, probably my public player background

[Andy Hughes]

Matt and Ian
There seem to be several different issues circulating here:
1. Would a Pinehurst #2, if built today, be noticed (how this thread began)
2. Would a Pinehurst #2, if built today, be as highly regarded as it currently is (what this thread early on morphed into)
3. Why should (or shouldn't) courses be ranked highly, and does the fact that a new course is appreciated by those self-described as architecture afficianados mean that it is highly regarded and or highly ranked (Matt's position)

I would posit that Matt is wrong. A course could be a marvel of architecture, one of the finest ever built (such as a #2, for example), but that does not by definition mean that it translates into a very highly ranked course.  It might 'only' mean that its design will be appreciated by those capable of appreciating such things.  
Rustic Canyon and the Golf Club have been brought up to refute this, but RC has not achieved the kinds of rankings we are talking about, and the Golf Club was built many years ago and has stayed on the lists ever since--whether it would get there if built today, I have no idea (Doak implies it wouldn't--I have never played it and will withhold comment).

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

Sorry to say partner -- but I disagree with you. The people with the "eyes" to see can recognize quality golf and whether or not Digest or other pubs recognize them doesn't mean everything to me as it seems to you.

If people who are raters do not elevate modern courses as high -- those with the pedigree I am speaking about -- it's simply that toooooooo many of them IMHO are simply lobbing brownie points at other courses simply because they have always been near the top of such ratings.

[Andy Hughes]

Sorry to say partner -- but I disagree with you.

I knew that  

The people with the "eyes" to see can recognize quality golf and whether or not Digest or other pubs recognize them doesn't mean everything to me as it seems to you.

Several points Matt:
1. It doesn't mean a lot to me per se, as I don't have access to most of these courses anway. So whether I don't get to play a course that is ranked #10 in the country, or I don't get to play it when it's #50, it's all the same to me. I understand that your own personal rankings of courses are not determined by what you read in some magazines list (I assume that is what you mean), but for better or worse, if we are discussing where a course would rank if built today, then it is the more well-known lists (i.e. Golf Digest) that we must use, even if the well-regarded Ward Power Rankings may be far more accurate and up-to-date (and please lemme know when you need more raters on staff  ).
2. The discussion has for a while now been about whether a #2 would be as highly ranked if it came out now. For that to make any sense, there needs logically to be some type of rank. Whether its Golf Digest or Golf Magazine or GolfWeek or some other lists, it doesn't matter to me. But these seem to be where the rankings come from, as well as being the ones that have been mentioned in this thread. I am not claiming these rankings are infallible (in fact, I have tried to claim the opposite in a different thread) or even accurate, but they are the only rankings I am aware of.

If people who are raters do not elevate modern courses as high -- those with the pedigree I am speaking about -- it's simply that toooooooo many of them IMHO are simply lobbing brownie points at other courses simply because they have always been near the top of such ratings.

But this implies that you also think that a course debuting now would not be ranked as high as it should because of 'brownie points' earned elsewhere (see, I knew you believed in inertia  )

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

Many people play a "renown" top 30-40 course and subconsicously are giving points simply because it is the exalted layout from years gone by. Reputation -- not actual design -- becomes the starting point for some.

Let me give you an example -- Black Mesa in New Mexico will not get much fuss from a number of people because of its location and because no "big name" person designed the course. In my mind -- it's right up there with any of the big name new clubs including Pacific Dunes.

Raters / reviewers should be assessing the pure aspects of the design and leave out the other matters. As a practical matter I know that's unlikely to happen with a good number of them. However, there are people who have no hesitation in giving high marks to new courses. I rate the product not the architect who did it. Some people do it backwards IMHO.

Pinehurst #2 is an exceptional layout -- it would still be whether Donald Ross or Donald Duck did it. The layout has all the outstanding virtues without relying for a minute on off-course elements meant to hype the "appeal" of the course but with little to deal with the innate architectural merits.

Andy -- there is ignorance -- not inertia -- by the people who should know more about what is happening.

Let's not forget that Digest instituted the silly tradition points category in order to make sure that such courses from years gone by would not be pushed out or lower by the very people who are doing their ratings in the first place. How appropriate / relevant is that?

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Hidden Creek and Rustic Canyon are the two modern courses built in the last 20 years that most closely embody the characteristics of Pinehurst - this has not equated to celebration of these two layouts. Surely Hidden Creek could be summed up with "The layout has all the outstanding virtues without relying for a minute on off-course elements meant to hype the "appeal" of the course but with little to deal with the innate architectural merits." and yet many dislike the course. I thought Tom Doak's description of the GOLF raters who voted down Pinehurst sounds a lot like the reaction of some to Hidden Creek.

[ian]

Ben,

Subtle courses do not initially reach lofty heights, they rise slowly with appreciation. They usually need more than one playing.

Flashy courses open with a big buzz, only to drift down with additional play

A great playing course will always shine through the hype.