No Longer a Ten?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

I played No. 2 with Rees a few years ago, and yeah, he consulted up to the last Open at least.  Probably still there.  I asked a lot of questions and got a lot of answers about just what went into the renovations.  Kinda fun to hear.

I also asked about the look of the course in the pro shop, esp. the wall to wall overseeding in the winter.  They said the average resort golfer didn't care for the striking contrast (to me at least) of green fw and brown rough.  For me, that look was one of the best in golf and I was sorry to see that go. 

In fact, that overseeding has taken the course down in my eyes as much as the narrowed fw.  I actually didn't mind those as much, since the last time I played, I took my son down there after the AJGA Footjoy in Greensboro a few years ago, and as a compeitive golfer, at least he enjoyed the US Open fw width as a point of comparison.  (He managed a couple of 74's from the tips)

Mike,

As has been discussed here before, P2 is one of those courses that kind of grows on you, since its not ocean front spectacular.  It took me three playings to put it in my top ten.  If ranking had just started in the last 20 years, it might not have made it to anyone's top ten, so thank God its reputation was established long ago. 

Even then, in many ways I can understand those who call it a "one trick pony" since most of its challenge is those domed greens.  I have never analyzed whether the angles mean that much with todays clubs as they used to, and whether that should affect the rankings.  It has sure held up well in the last few Opens, which is what most people probably look at.  Without those Opens, it might have started to fall down the lists a bit.

[Matt_Ward]

Mike S:

I do agree with Tom that #2 was a ten at one point. However, keep in mind this -- at any point in time there are quite a few layouts that have bounced down a peg or two and sometimes even more.

The issue Tom raised -- fairway widths -- is simply a sore point that I also have -- see ANGC and BB as two quick examples of this similar type.

Pinehurst in general has gone through a major up and down cycle over the years from the Tufts through Diamondhead to Club Corp and all the related cast of characters that have passed through that area.

I had the pleasure in first playing #2 when the natural elements that made the course so grand were alive and well. When prepared to what Ross had in mind the layout presents a very clear and compelling demonstration of architecture at its highest level.

Conceptually, the whole notion of "widths" is lost among those who conduct national championships - save for the recent take of Mike Davis at the USGA and Kerry Haigh of the PGA.

Too many people / courses have the mistaken belief that narrowing fairways to the point of bowling alley width is the only way to test the top players today. That is baloney. How bout the players be allowed to sample #2 as it was meant to be played.

I do agree with Tom D that if folks there have such a closed mind then a number of bad reviews -- plus other comments -- may be needed for them to see the light.

But, as I said previously, the same thing needs to be said for a range of courses that have followed suit. I loved Bethpage Black when it was the Black of old. That has been altered to the poiint of not be recognizable

Mike, many people don't get the meaning of #2 even in its best of days because not one hole there would really make a top 18 all-star listing and the elements of strategy are akin to playing TOC. Playing one time or even two times doesn't mean a full revelation of what Ross provided. I can easily understand people who play it one time coming away scratching their heads and wondering what all the hoopla is about.


Steve K:

Thanks for your post.

I played #2 and all the related courses in and around the area when I was a student at South Carolina and visiting the greater Sandhills region. #2 still has the framework for greatness but frankly the course needs to abandon the incomprehensible desire to abandon its very roots of greatness for a version that is clearly incompatible with its true meaning.

Gents:

Doak's comments are also noteworthy because it proves the point -- not that it had to be proved -- that real evaluations of the top tier layouts -- the so-called "sacred cows" sometimes is left on the sidelines and many people simply presume that such courses will ALWAYS be among the very top tier of places. That's not the case -- either with Tom's mentioning of #2 or any other ciourse(s) for that matter.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Random musings, but I wonder how much of the success from the Opens works against Pinehurst going back to some other look.  As I mentioned above, my son, and I think lots of others, would prefer to play P2 as it looked in the Opens they have seen on TV.  While you can't see green speed and minor changes in rough depth, fw width are easily recognizeable.  I wouldn't be surprised if now, those paying $300 or whatever would feel cheated if No. 2 was "mowed out" (in their eyes) to make it an easier test.  They already feel cheated if they have to play any of the other Pinehurst courses.....

Leaving the fw narrow is probably a pretty good commerical decision, as is wall to wall overseeding.  it would take a lot of negative reviews here to overturn the more publicly accessible US Open TV message that Pinehurst No. 2 "ought to" be set up some other way.

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

The :some other way" was how Pinehurst #2 was MEANT to be played. That's the point Tom and others -- myself included have made. The issue is that management generally falls back on the tried and true mentality in narrowing courses to the point in which the fundamental character of what made the place grand to start with is now lost for the usual preferred look.

It's long overdue for width to be returned to its past glories -- ANGC and Bethpage Black can also use a bully pulpit beatdown as well.

[Tim Bert]

Jeff:

The :some other way" was how Pinehurst #2 was MEANT to be played. That's the point Tom and others -- myself included have made. The issue is that management generally falls back on the tried and true mentality in narrowing courses to the point in which the fundamental character of what made the place grand to start with is now lost for the usual preferred look.

It's long overdue for width to be returned to its past glories -- ANGC and Bethpage Black can also use a bully pulpit beatdown as well.

Matt - I think Jeff understands that.  Tom understands that.  You understand that.  I understand that.  A bunch of people here understand that.  At the end of the day, we are a minority of the cash flow driving decisions at Pinehurst, which I believe is Jeff's point.  The "masses" that go there probably want to play a US Open course.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Mike

I group it with TOC and all three Royal Melbourne courses in terms of how I reacted to it.  A lot of fun, huge challenge -- and you can't lose a ball.  I think a lot of people subconsciously compare it to Pebble; they're sort of twinned.  Interestingly, I have had many opportunities to schedule a trip to Pebble but haven't felt the need to go back now in more than 10 years.  I have gone way out of my way to play #2.

Reflecting a little more, it scores on four fronts: fun, intellectual challenge, physical challenge, emotional challenge.

The fun comes in the form of shots played to, on, and, all too often, from just off the greens.

It's such a thinker's course owing to the inaccessibility of the architecture.  There are spots to hit to off the tee, but those spots are not framed or dictated in overt ways.  Also, paralysis by analysis is a common consequence of shots just off the green.

I guess the changes cut two ways.  One, they raise the accessibility, and two, they might not even be raising the accessibility properly.

Of course like the other courses cited you must execute: there is a fine line between acceptable and poor execution, which owing to the inaccessibility of the architecture may not be apparent for the first several plays.  After the first several plays, however, a firm imprint of past failures induces an anxiety that would mystify the non golfer, for there is no apparent danger, nothing particularly dramatic or heroic in the vistas to give the bystander visual confirmation of the player's agita.

It's not a course that "tells" or "shows," it's a course that "reveals," and if you aren't willing to put in the effort to find it you're going to wonder what the fuss is about.

All of this of course is really a byproduct of the core physical challenge: short game execution. As at TOC, there will be shots you may be tempted to try which you most-certainly have never or very rarely practiced.  If the dub's "signature" shot at TOC is the 100-foot putt, at #2 it's the Texas Wedge that must trundle up a 5-foot steep slope at an angle, then roll downhill / sideways / not straight to the hole.  Or maybe that shot is a 7-iron bump and run.  Wait, make that a one-lever flop, or is it a spin-pitch, no, it's a dessert topping...

I hesitate to make the next comment, given the posters above have forgotten more about golf than I ever will learn, but I am not sure I would like to see love grass make a big return.  I'm not good enough for the greens to be so easy that I need such a challenge from being out of position.  Having the wrong angle in is enough for me!  But if D Ross put them in and T Doak
laments wall-to-wall Bermuda, then I must be wrong.  Guess it's the old problem of designing for the expert player vs the dub.  To make a point here, though, I would not label love-grass removal as dumbing down the architecture for the resort golfer, because the love grass, like the addition of rough, makes the architecture more not less accessible in that it helps "frame" the holes and tell the golfer where he is supposed to hit it.

Now, as I am someone who manages the special combination of poor playing ability with course-judgment abilities that would do a caveman proud, take these comments for what they're worth.  Personally, I love the idea of a course where the dub can't lose a ball while the expert is tested to the max, but what do I know about the expert? As someone who feels the need to play a course multiple times just to figure out what it's about, I liked the course from the start but did not begin to feel architecture OCD until the 10th play.  Now, a reaction sets in whenever I travel within 100 miles, and that's no laughing matter with gas prices where they are.

Dang.  I have to call up right now to see about getting on Wed am.  Mapquest puts the detour at 3 hours. I could check room and course availability for you, too!

Mark

[Jay Flemma]

Would mowing really detract that much from the architecture?

In he case of Pinehurst, where the difference between a good angle and bad angle is microns, yes.  You could screw up the strategies exponentially by growing rough in the wrong places.

Can anyone get more deets? 

[Chuck Brown]

If Pinehurst isn't a 10, it's close enough for me.  I'll leave the 8,9 10 distinctions to Tom.

As far as bad mowing lines go, Tom knows better than just about all of us that there are many reasons/scenarios in which courses get bad mowing lines.  Usually, and Tom has probably seen this in hundreds of golf courses, it is from sloth or inattention from the superintendent or his crew, where greens shrink, chipping areas are lost or lose distinction and fairways move.  Tom has probably seen some instances where the bad mowing lines were bad original architecture.

But in the case of Pinehurst, where I'd never presume any kind of inattention with #2, this is all -- presumably -- related to the demands of major championships.

Maybe we've come to the point where golf courses are being "bifurcated."  Where even changes that make the golf course WORSE are nevetheless needed, in the name of making the course "harder" when players can hit the ball so far.

[Chip Gaskins]

Changing the mowing patterns/narrowing the fairways and not restoring them seems to be a "universal" for preparing for one of the "big shows".

Wonderful courses such as Newport, Merion, Shinnecock, Pinehurst, Bethpage and others have lost much of their original fairway widths.

And for what, four days out of every ten years ?

The concept of horizontal elasticity seems to be undiscovered by the wonderful clubs that let the camel into the tent.

Patrick-

This is the exact way I see it as well.  The great old courses that host big events for tour players have become narrower and narrower after each big event.

The USGA, PGA Tour or PGA of America come in and squeeze down the landing areas for the Tour event and then the greens committee or super never take the mowing lines  back out to the original widths. 

I suppose it makes people feel like the course plays more like "tour conditions"?
 
Here are a few examples:

Pinehurst #2, Hole 1


Merion #4


Merion #11


Oakmont #9




However many of the old great courses that have not held big events still (for the most part) have maintained much of their fairway width (at least the ones that I have played)

Here are a few examples:

Yeamans Hall

photo from Ran

Pine Valley #8


Pine Valley #2


Pasatiempo #4

[Steve Kline]

If Pinehurst isn't a 10, it's close enough for me.  I'll leave the 8,9 10 distinctions to Tom.

As far as bad mowing lines go, Tom knows better than just about all of us that there are many reasons/scenarios in which courses get bad mowing lines.  Usually, and Tom has probably seen this in hundreds of golf courses, it is from sloth or inattention from the superintendent or his crew, where greens shrink, chipping areas are lost or lose distinction and fairways move.  Tom has probably seen some instances where the bad mowing lines were bad original architecture.

But in the case of Pinehurst, where I'd never presume any kind of inattention with #2, this is all -- presumably -- related to the demands of major championships.

Maybe we've come to the point where golf courses are being "bifurcated."  Where even changes that make the golf course WORSE are nevetheless needed, in the name of making the course "harder" when players can hit the ball so far.

These changes aren't the result of inattention. It's because of the Opens. Once the first Open came they never went back.

[Matt Kardash]

The straits course at Whistling straits is another course that has greatly suffered from this. Since having major championships at this course they have not gone back to the original fairway widths. Here is an aerial of the 6th hole. The ot bunker left of the fairway used to be a center-line hazrad. Zoom out and you'll see that the fairway bunkers are hardly even in play anymore because there is at least 10 yards of fairway betwen the fairway and the gunkers. Also, check the neighbouring Irish course's fairways, which are untouched. it makes you appreciate how narrow the Straits course is now.

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=43.841254~-87.730583&style=h&lvl=18&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff:

The :some other way" was how Pinehurst #2 was MEANT to be played. That's the point Tom and others -- myself included have made. The issue is that management generally falls back on the tried and true mentality in narrowing courses to the point in which the fundamental character of what made the place grand to start with is now lost for the usual preferred look.

It's long overdue for width to be returned to its past glories -- ANGC and Bethpage Black can also use a bully pulpit beatdown as well.

Matt - I think Jeff understands that.  Tom understands that.  You understand that.  I understand that.  A bunch of people here understand that.  At the end of the day, we are a minority of the cash flow driving decisions at Pinehurst, which I believe is Jeff's point.  The "masses" that go there probably want to play a US Open course.

Tim,

Thanks for that. Hopefully, it will head off another dozen posts by Matt telling me just how much I don't get it.  But, hey, even he calls it the "preferred look".  So, if its preferred, who is a small minority of golf design geeks to tell the owner of the course what to do, when they have the mortgage and ops expenses to pay?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chip,

There's an interesting dynamic amongst golfers and courses that seek/host U.S. Opens.

Many members take pride in how diabolic their golf course will/has become.

They take delight in humiliating golfers whose abilities aren't commensurate with the course that's presented for PGA Tour caliber golfers.

I don't understand it.
Yes, it's fun to OCCASSIONALLY test your game against the playing field that's been specifically prepared for the best golfers in the world, but, it's no fun to do it day in and day out.

My limited perspective, based on my observations and discussions with members from several clubs that were/are in the Open rota, is that being in the Open rota is what identifies or seperates them from other great courses.  It's their "Red Badge of Courage", their "one upmanship" on the others.

And, the price of that perceived lofty position is to maintain, on a daily basis, conditions not to disimilar from tournament conditions.

As a member who would play daily, give me Maidstone, Hidden Creek, Friar's Head, Garden City, NGLA, St George's and other clubs with wide fairways and interesting architecture, with a little wind thrown in, versus, Winged Foot, Baltusrol, Bethpage and others.

Shinnecock could be included, but, they've made SOME strides in returning their fairway widths.
They still need to expand them, hopefully to close to the original acreage.

One of my grave concerns is The Walker Cup setup and the future of NGLA's fairway widths.
Narrowed fairways at NGLA would undermine many of the design principles and the genius of the architecture.

I had hoped, with all the resources available, that ANGC would engage in horizontal elasticity, narrowing and widening their fairways for tournament and non-tournament play.
ANGC has to be viewed in a different light because they host a tournament every year, whereas, the courses I mentioned host an Open once every 10-15 years.

The notion of the average golfer taking pride in playing a golf course, on a daily basis, that's been altered to specifically fit the game of the best players in the world, is insane.

I believe it's a misguided effort to elevate the golf course's/club's stature

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

We are in agreement -- no sense getting too thin-skinned. There won't be a "anther dozen posts" as you mentioned.  

I don't doubt that the folks at Pinehurst can run the place as they see fit in terms of "hav(ing) the mortgage and ops expenses to pay." The real issue is do they understand their own history and the rich tradition that comes with ownership. Calling such new layouts with their perverse modern style cuts out of character is certainly something that should be done - no less than other critics who weigh in when people / institutions opt for the quick buck instead of realizing that a good buck and homage to the past can happen.

The greater tragedy is that people who own institutions need to realize a good bit more their stewardship role of such unique and truly historic places.

[Sean_A]

I have never played Pinehurst #2. Just curious if everyone agrees with Tom Doak that it was ever a 10 on the Doak Scale?

Mike

I wasn't a huge fan of Pinehurst on my visit.  To be fair, the bad taste in my mouth had as much to do with the course as the mickey mouse atmosphere of the place.  Two things which bugged me were the growing in of the fairways (it had just started in prep for the Open that summer) and the overseeding.  The course looked bizarre to be honest.  A third thing which bothered me a bit were the greens.  Mnay seemed to require the same sort of recovery.  Its a great idea gone a bit too wild for my tastes - and I will never be convinced that these are how Ross intended them to be.  A few things that impressed me was the width (the rough was grwoing in, but it wasn't long) of the place and the idea that shots weren't readily obvious.  Herein lies part of the problem.  I need to see the course a few more times to get the hang of where to hit the greens from approaches, but I can't ever go back given the prices and terrible atmosphere of the place.  It sounds harsh, but if ever there was a place taht needs to go private - Pinehurst is it!  Of course, none of this means it isn't as Doak 10 as only Doak decides this.  For me, Pinehurst falls considerably short of the very best courses I have seen and I would say it is one of the biggest disappointments I have ever come across. 

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

I didn't mean to get snippy with you!  The thing about CCA/Deadman family and the idea that they don't know their history is mostly wrong.  They were wildly heraled as bringing the place back including more wire grass, better hotel facility, etc. when they took it over.  And, they brought in the Open, long absent at Pinehurst.

So, how to present the course isn't all that cut and dried.  I could understand if they looked at everything and decided the decisions to make the course Open ready were as much a part of the courses history as Ross' original platform and design, especially since his design got tweaked over the years.

If Merion "restored" back to 1929-30 (their tournament highlight years) rather than to their 1912 opening, is there a case for P2 to incorporate the look and features of 1999 when Payne Stewart won?  We can't necessarily be so myopic as to not recognize when "THESE are the good old days" can we?  

Of course, I can believe those who say the basic look and feel of P2 for the 1936 N and S (I think Ross last major remodel, although as Mandell's book shows, changes continued to happen) might be the highlight.  But, I can see where others would disagree.

Its just a value judgement in the end, and not one thats ours to make.  No harm in letting Pinehurst know our opinion though.  

And, as a resort course, I would think they would benefit by wider fw and could easily market it as the way Ross intended, going back to the old charm, etc. more than most, for whom wider fw would just be seen as an excuse for freeway resort golf.

BTW, to answer Tom's original question, I still think its a 10, or at least a 9.75.  While I think rankings can and should change over time, I think like boxing, the benefit of the doubt should go to the long time champion!

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

My point was not about Club Corp or the Deadman family. The issue is that Pinehurst sees fit to charge a king's ransom to play the place and the width element is now aborted because of the inane belief that narrow fairways is the golden pathway to ultimate recognition. Somehow someone got amnesia about what made Pinehurst #2 so special in the first place.

Jeff, let me point out that Mike Davis has demonstrated, in such a short time frame, that the so-called model that has been worshiped by the USGA for too long concerning how to prepare an Open site need to follow the same tired and rather scripted fashion in having 25 wide fairways with hay-like rough to every side. There can be different formulas followed and #2 can play such a leading contrary point of view.

My desire is not "myopic" but to be true to oneself in what brought Pinehurst the very acclaim that made it great to start with. There need not be one golden path to what a US Open site must contain. Pinehurst #2 possesses that capacity if in fact the folks running the show understand what made #2 so grand to start with.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Brauer,

I think you raise an important distinction.

P2 is a RESORT course, a DESTINATION course, not a typical, local daily fee or private course.

Visitors/guests want to play THE course that hosted the Open, irrespective of its configuration.

Especially because they won't be playing it every day, as they would on their home course.

[Steve Kline]

Chip,

There's an interesting dynamic amongst golfers and courses that seek/host U.S. Opens.

Many members take pride in how diabolic their golf course will/has become.

They take delight in humiliating golfers whose abilities aren't commensurate with the course that's presented for PGA Tour caliber golfers.

I don't understand it.
Yes, it's fun to OCCASSIONALLY test your game against the playing field that's been specifically prepared for the best golfers in the world, but, it's no fun to do it day in and day out.

My limited perspective, based on my observations and discussions with members from several clubs that were/are in the Open rota, is that being in the Open rota is what identifies or seperates them from other great courses.  It's their "Red Badge of Courage", their "one upmanship" on the others.

And, the price of that perceived lofty position is to maintain, on a daily basis, conditions not to disimilar from tournament conditions.

As a member who would play daily, give me Maidstone, Hidden Creek, Friar's Head, Garden City, NGLA, St George's and other clubs with wide fairways and interesting architecture, with a little wind thrown in, versus, Winged Foot, Baltusrol, Bethpage and others.

Shinnecock could be included, but, they've made SOME strides in returning their fairway widths.
They still need to expand them, hopefully to close to the original acreage.

One of my grave concerns is The Walker Cup setup and the future of NGLA's fairway widths.
Narrowed fairways at NGLA would undermine many of the design principles and the genius of the architecture.

I had hoped, with all the resources available, that ANGC would engage in horizontal elasticity, narrowing and widening their fairways for tournament and non-tournament play.
ANGC has to be viewed in a different light because they host a tournament every year, whereas, the courses I mentioned host an Open once every 10-15 years.

The notion of the average golfer taking pride in playing a golf course, on a daily basis, that's been altered to specifically fit the game of the best players in the world, is insane.

I believe it's a misguided effort to elevate the golf course's/club's stature

Of course at #2 many of the people are playing once in a lifetime. I certainly understand the owner's potential rationale of keeping it in "U.S. Open" set up all the time because it might be what resorts guests want. It's just a shame for those of who enjoy the architecture.

Pat - I posted this before I got to read your last post before mine.

[Tom_Doak]

Do people go there because it's a U.S. Open course or because it is one of the top ten courses in America?  They used to get plenty of play before the two Opens, didn't they?

[Chuck Brown]

If Pinehurst isn't a 10, it's close enough for me.  I'll leave the 8,9 10 distinctions to Tom.

As far as bad mowing lines go, Tom knows better than just about all of us that there are many reasons/scenarios in which courses get bad mowing lines.  Usually, and Tom has probably seen this in hundreds of golf courses, it is from sloth or inattention from the superintendent or his crew, where greens shrink, chipping areas are lost or lose distinction and fairways move.  Tom has probably seen some instances where the bad mowing lines were bad original architecture.

But in the case of Pinehurst, where I'd never presume any kind of inattention with #2, this is all -- presumably -- related to the demands of major championships.

Maybe we've come to the point where golf courses are being "bifurcated."  Where even changes that make the golf course WORSE are nevetheless needed, in the name of making the course "harder" when players can hit the ball so far.

These changes aren't the result of inattention. It's because of the Opens. Once the first Open came they never went back.

Steve, I hope you understand that I already expressed substantial agreement with you.  I don't know if you want to cast special blame on the U.S. Open or the USGA in particular.
But the same kinds of things are being done to courses that host the PGA Championship, the Open Championship and regular tour events all over.

Also, is it not common that with members at clubs hosting major championships, that those memberships are mostly swept away by the notion of their just having the event; the event itself is what validates their view of the course, and few of the members concern themselves with the playable qualities of the course changes?  Seems to me that on those occasions on which memberships oppose hosting majors, the conventional wisdom is that those members are just too stuffy, or desirous of their privacy, or unwilling to give up the club for a month, etc.

Almost never do I hear about members at major championship clubs taking the position that the USGA needs to make changes to its equipment regulations before they will make more changes to their courses.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Do people go there because it's a U.S. Open course or because it is one of the top ten courses in America? 

They used to get plenty of play before the two Opens, didn't they?

Tom Doak,

Having visited and played Pinehurst # 2 over the last 45 years, you can't view your question in the isolated context of "just" the golf course.

Pinehurst # 2, when the Tufts family owned and operated it, was very special, in many ways.

I believe that the pricing model may have been vastly different too.

Once sold, the club went through a series of owners and transitions.

Hosting the Open seemed more like a marketing strategy than a gesture to honor and give back to the game.

I remember golfers staying at Pinehurst for an extended period of time, from days to weeks.
I wonder what the average stay is today.

[Jim_Kennedy]

"I believe that the pricing model may have been vastly different too".- Pat Mucci

Yeah, in the '70s you could stay at the resort for two nights, w/three days of golf (including one round on #2) and meals for the princely sum of $106.00 PP.  

Yikes! 


p.s. $106 translates into ca. $405 today

[Steve Kline]

Pinehurst has had their up and downs in levels of play just like anywhere else. It pretty much cycles with the economy. At one point in the '90s it seemed like most resort guests were Japanese. I will say that overall since the Opens that Pinehurst in general is a vastly different place. Prior to them there were at most 3-5 chain restaurants. Now, there's pretty much anything you want plus all kinds of big-box stores, etc. IMO, there isn't much doubt that all of this resulted because of the Opens and people buying/building more houses there plus increased resort activity. It's been great for the local economy so I think many people would see the Opens as plus. I think members at Pinehurst would view hosting major tournaments differently than say members of Winged Foot or Oakmont. I don't sense the prestige factor from members at Pinehurst. In fact, many of them would probably rather not have them so they can continue to get their tee times with relative ease and not have resort guests slowing them down. Of course, the marketing aspect of the Opens as a huge reason for the owners to do it and it allowed them to invest significant sums in the resort. It will be interesting to see how much all of this changes in a terrible housing market and slowing economy. Although, Pinehurst is a very inexpensive place to live and a great deal as member. My dad is a member of courses 1-7 and pays monthly dues of $375 - or one round for a walk up on #2 per month.

[Matt_Ward]

Frankly the hosting of the Open for Pinehurst became a ready made excuse to bump high rates to even higher rates.

No doubt that may not impact a certain % of people but my times of playing #2 were certainly influenced because of this action.

Tom Doak hit the nail squarely on the head -- plenty of people played #2 prior to the '99 US Open and the course was indeed truer to its roots at that time then this inane desire to narrow fairways to the point in which the genesis of the course is rendered a moot point.

I would think the people who run the place understand its history and what made it the shrine for golf that it was. Clearly, that has not happened in the day-to-day execution of what #2 is now.