[George Pazin]

Matt -

I'm a little surprised you would pull out the "how could you know after playing it once" card, to a practicing architect of all people, who's also walked the course.

How many times have you commented on a new course after playing it once?

I've disagreed with Forrest many a time on this site, but I would never presume to tell him, someone who actually builds courses for a living, that my one time visits are superior to his.

[Forrest Richardson]

Let me just say that No. 2 is over-hyped. I think a lot can be learned from it. It's a great venue. A terrific place. A wonderful setting. The village and the way everything comes together is remarkable.

The Pinecrest Inn is still better.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

I have certainly weighed in with comments on playing a course just once, however, I'm more than willing to listen to the comments of people who have played a course several times or more than I have.

George -- let me also mention to you -- you may have missed it in your zeal to get involved -- that #2 IMHO is one of those rare courses where multiple plays are a necessary item in order to understand its subtle character. Few courses I have played can say that. Have you played the course? And, if so, what are your comments?

I also keep an open mind (hint / hint!) regarding the wherewithal to change my mind when a superior case can be made on any course as I did with The Bridge.

Let me also correct you regarding Pinehurst #2 -- I have played the place no less than 25 times since 1975. Forrest has played it once according to what he said. In addition, Forrest has only personally seen / played one other Ross course -- Scioto. I don't presume anything -- I base my opinions on having more familiarity with the subject at hand. That doesn't mean I'm automatically right -- it just means I have personally played / seen more Ross layouts than he has. People can make their own judgements from that -- I believe his comments on #2 are simply not true or at the very minimum fail to understand the total dynamics of the course.

I said to Forrest that his Ross portfolio is really quite lite and for him to base his comments on such a limited range of Ross personal observations is really stretching the issue a good deal IMHO.

George -- I never made reference to Forrest's ability as an architect but I do take strong exception that simply because one has the tag "architect" in your vitae doesn't automatically bestow any sense of knighthood when the subject of golf courses is raised -- especially when the person in question has such a very limited experience with the courses from a particular architect.

Forrest:

I appreciate your comments but help me out -- and others -- when you say some course is "not very exciting" or "over-hyped" how bout going a bit further with your analysis? I would have liked to seen what specific courses you would place beyond #2 and those that fall below it.

My questions were not condescending or mean-spirited. Rather I was just trying to flush you out on your assessment and for you to exit stage left is certainly your prerogative but given your background as an architect I had hoped for much more.

A pity.

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

They're doing a "Point/Counterpoint" on their site.  My buddy, Shane Sharp, did the counterpoint.  See link below:
http://www.golfcarolina.com/features/pinehurst-two-praise-449.htm

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

Thanks for the link -- keep in mind that Chris Wallace, the author of the article, "Pinehurst #2 doesn't warrant the hype," goes as far as to say #2 isn't among the top ten courses in North Carolina but wimps out and fails to list those ahead of it.

It amuses me to no end when people say playing #2 is simply about the "experience" as one would think you are only talking about the clubhouse, the food, the attention to detail, etc, etc.

The simply fact is that the "core experience" relates to the manner by which 18 holes are put together for the entire "experience" when playing.

For those who need visual stimuli in order to stay a wake then head for other venues because #2 is not about make-up or cosmetic presentations.

I don't doubt Mr. Wallace has an opinion -- but whether it's an informed one is clearly open to interpretation in my book.

[Forrest Richardson]

...having to produce the spectacular to "pay the bills" has nothing whatsoever to do with creativity. Spectacular is your choice of wording. I said "surprise". And I meant it more in terms of uniqueness, not the surprise one gets from the subtle things one finds in the course after playing it many times. Although, that is certainly a good attribute.

"Americans need constant stimulation, nearly every 3 seconds, just look at commercials, music videos and the use of news factoids."  — Maybe so. But that's not what I'm referring to.

No. 2 is a great course. No doubt. But it has enjoyed its status as a result of its setting amongst a great golfing village. Put it alone and without the many years of marketing and you still have a great course — solid, charming and many other great qualities.

Matt — How many courses belong before No. 2 in the rankings? I'll say 50+ worldwide. I know you would prefer a list, but I don't have the time to justify or prepare such. Sorry. Perhaps my second honest answer of the week will suffice...at least it gives you a perspective.

[Matt_Ward]

Forrest:

Appreciate the honesty but until you're able to name specific courses that are ahead of #2 it's hard for me to say with any certainty what my reaction is.

#2 is more than just marketing and the village experience that you cite. The totality of shotmaking is what #2 does so very well and it does that without all the hoopla and visual imagery that far too often catches the attention and interest of those playing the game.

Forrest -- too many golfers are interested in the "show" rather than the actual product. #2 isn't flashy but it does make you play at a high level for 18 holes. If people don't see the value in that then so be it.

[Forrest Richardson]

Matt — You may have misjudged my comments. I have never said No. 2 is purely about marketing and setting. But the setting, as an example, may be as good or better in some instances, than parts of the course. That is my opinion...but, as I said, I'll continue to look for aspects which may change my impressions.

You may also have misjudged my priorities. Your reaction, while I appreciate it, is not going to change my impression anymore than mine would yours.

I feel there are easily 50 courses which are more memorable than No. 2 for decent and ample reasons — not just setting or ambiance. Listing 50 courses would yield those with several unique holes, more dramatic natural features, unusual qualities — plus all of the ambiance, setting and legacy which is such a past of golf.

[Matt_Ward]

Forrest:

Forgive me -- but when you use the word 50 courses are "easily" more memorable than #2 I have to ask how you apply the memorable and if that application has more to do with the setting than with the actual requirements of shotmaking which I place as a first among all equals when assessing courses. If shotmaking isn't at the highest of levels then I have to wonder where the real beef is with any course. I'm not basing shotmaking on reliance on difficulty or length but it's the interplay of how the total challenge is woven together. #2 does that IMHO -- even though not one single hole would likely qualify as being scenic and awesome as others like the par-4 8th at PB, to name just one example.

I'm not interested in changing your mind -- I'm interested in understanding it. Without a listing of courses this discussion adds little clarity to your position. You're the guy who asserts that 50 courses are beyond #2 worldwide. I can't deal in smoke and mirrors -- I deal in actualties -- like real names of courses. Only then -- will I begin to understand where you are going with your statements.

[TEPaul]

"I did not say that No. 2 is "not exciting" — I said it was not very exciting. There is a difference."

Forrest:

Do you really mean not very exciting looking? If you ask me Donald Ross was probably the king of them all at creating golf courses that play great but aren't that exciting looking. I think in his life my dad belonged to about six Ross courses and I sure have seen plenty of them.

Donald Ross, in my opinion, was probably the very best ever at creating courses that look easier than they are. The look and feel of most Ross courses is probably some result of his basic conservative, Scottish, Calvinist nature.

A lot of them do play different than they look though.

[brad_miller]

Tom, that is the essance of #2, and great golf architecture for that matter.

[Forrest Richardson]

Matt —

1. Make a photocopy of Golf Week's 100 Best Classic List
2. Cut out No. 2 and drop it about 10 spots.
3. Cut out anything else you desire and move the courses around, keeping 18 or 19 courses above No. 2
3. Take out a Sharpie and re-number everything

- - -

Tom — I agree about shotmaking. No. 2 offers great challenge and the greens are very difficult to read. One would certainly benefit from many, many rounds there when it comes to the greens alone. I came away with a great sense of how (and why) Ross worked with the land and green angles to demand accuracy in executing the golf shot.

I probably would hold that shotmaking qualities are very high in determining great courses from really great courses — but golf is a complex beast: Shotmaking, I believe, was only part of the equation on the mind of those who created and evolved this game. It's much the same today. There are many influences which make for great golf.

The aesthetics at No. 2 are very good. I enjoyed the look and scenery. The effort to bring back more native /natural grasses (as they have begun to add here and there) was working very well.

I believe No. 2 demands its best from the expert player. (I am not an expert player.) While I had a good time there, I came away feeling that the course itself was simply not as engaging as I had imagined......hence, I will answer again: Is No. 2 over-hyped? Yes, in my opinion, it is.

[Matt_Ward]

Forrest:

Appreciate the answer -- but you originally said 50 courses worldwide are beyond the likes of #2. Just calculating your last reponse would mean no less than 30 courses worldwide are beyond the likes of #2. Really?

Also, what is the first among equals for you when you assess a course? Please don't lob forward several responses of equal weight. I said shotmaking is that necessary ingredient because fundamentally when you play golf you are hitting shots and the great courses try to provide the consumate variety of shots in order to bring out the best players from the also rans.

A design may need many things to be great but if shotmaking is not at the very top IMHO you will not have the kind of layout that excites you many times in the future.

P.S. Forrest -- #2 allows the golfer who's not an expert to successfully play the course without a high reliance on H20, out of bounds and most importantly rough. You face many strategic choices without the overkill from penal aspects that are the hallmark of other courses.

[Forrest Richardson]

I haven't played all of the top 20-30 of Golf Week's Classic list. Nor any full complement of the top 20-30 lists of worldwide courses. My gut feeling is that No. 2 would fall somewhere around 50. It may be closer to 70...or perhaps 38.

Shotmaking is an interesting word. I feel it is used here as if we all might agree on its meaning. I doubt this.

Golf shots are about choices, carry, accuracy, interest, intrigue, stamina, ability, joy, faith, luck — plus many other fine qualities.

No. 2 provides very challenging shot value. Many of these are similar from my experience. Save a few, they were not very interesting on the whole — I was asked to make similar choices throughout, and also was given similar landscapes from which to accomplish this. The hallmark of the course is, as has been suggested, in its subtle nature. This is a very acceptable quality.

[Willie_Dow]

Forrest and Matt:

I liken your discussions to what David Earl wrote in the August 1994 "Golf Journal" about Donald Ross's "most lasting treasure"; they've penned paeans of praise about the course's total lack of gimmickry, how the holes flow over the grass-tufted sands and through the copses of longleaf pines, calling forth the best efforts that players from Hagen to Hogan, from Armour to Arnie, could muster.

----opinions differed as to the magic and merits of No. 2.  Raymond Floyd had naught bu praise: "I don't think anybody can take it out of their top five.  It is just a marvelous,traditional golf course.  It is a true masterpiece."

On the other hand, Lee Buck Trevino was not impressed.  When a garrulous galleryite asked him, "How do you like the course?"  Lee shot back, "I wouldn't be here if there wasn't a golf tournament here.  There all the same  -- greens, tees.  I'm here because there's money to be won."

U.S. Senior Open

[Matt_Ward]

Willie:

As a media member and someone who has interviewed Lee Buck on a few occasions his response is not out of character and would likely be mentioned by him on nearly all of the courses he played -- save for the links courses overseas which he greatly admired for their shotmaking requirements. Lee, IMHO, was the consumate pro golfer intent on winning the $$ associated with playing the game.

Forrest:

You mentioned, "I believe No. 2 demands its best from the expert player. (I am not an expert player.) While I had a good time there, I came away feeling that the course itself was simply not as engaging as I had imagined......hence, I will answer again: Is No. 2 over-hyped? Yes, in my opinion, it is."

I disagree. The average player has a greater opportunity to enjoy #2 than other courses where H20, out-of-bounds, heavy rough, to name just three, are the main obstacles when playing those type of courses.

When you say you were not "engaged" I have to wonder if you're mind was focused on the golf required or have you simply overdosed with the off-course aspects that many people need to hook into before saying a course is great. #2 doesn't have the Pacific or the famed town of St. Andrews bordering its fairways but it does allow for both expert and novice player to walk hand in hand down each hole and at the end provide the kind of on-course golf experience that few truly can indeed match IMHO.

Any player who is truly bored while at #2 is really not concentrating on the thrilling requirements of high octane shotmaking that is required. If you need bells'n whistles to get your motor running then #2 is not your cup of tea. For those who want prefer a golf option like TOC where strategic qualities are there if you pay attention then you will not be disappointed.

[jim_lewis]

I have not read most of the above posts because I have grown weary of arguments by those that fail to see the greatness of #2.

The correct answer to the original question is, NO.  In fact, #2 is underrated by all of the 3 major publications. It is one of the top three courses in the U.S.  The green complexes are the best I have ever seen, as they exist today. How they got to their current state is irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

Next question.

[Forrest Richardson]

Jim — Come up the bar with that attitude and a bunch of guys might quickly change the subject. And seats.

- - -

Matt —

(a) Was my mind focused on the golf required?
(b) Have I simply overdosed with the off-course aspects that many people need to hook into before saying a course is great?
(b) Does No. 2 have that hand-in-hand quality?

Yes.
No.
I agree, to a degree.

- - -

I have never used the words "bored" nor the term "bells and whistles" here. Matt, you're reading too much into some responses.

Is comparing No. 2 to The Old Course is a good move?

[TEPaul]

Jim Lewis:

I agree with you that how #2s greens got that way is irrelevent if they work well. It is just interesting to know though that they got as crowned as they now are via the interesting fix of basically a USGA spec green construction mistake!!  

[jim_lewis]

Forrest:

I like the idea of changing the subject.  I also agree with your assessment of the Pinecrest. I have my own seat there, thank you. The older I get, I find more things that I am not willing to change my mind about. Two of them are my opinion of #2 and my love of the Pinecrest Inn. (My home is two blocks from the Pinecrest, no accident!) Therefore, I will just state my position and leave the argument to those who still have an open mind on the subject.

Tom:

I agree that it would be interesting to know exactly how the greens on #2 evolved to their current state.  However, like all courses, I prefer to assess it as it currently exists. I sometimes get the impression that some would like the green complexes only if they can be assurred that they reflect Donald Ross's intent. Otherwise, they are not to be appreciated.  I am one of Donald Ross's biggest fans, but I do not need to know what his intent was in order to form an opinion about one of his courses.

[Forrest Richardson]

Anyone who lives near the Inn is to be respected at all cost and to all lengths.

[APBernstein]

Count me in the group that will endlessly praise #2.

Just wanted to get that on the record.

And as someone who won $20 in a chipping contest within 5 minutes of first stepping foot into the Pinecrest Inn, count me on that bandwagon as well.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()