[Mike Mosely]

I've played both Mid-Pines and Pine Needles.

M-P underwhelmed.  There was so little there, it seemed a relic.

Not an antique, a relic.  When I play PN it seems like I'm playing what M-P is supposed to be on its best day, but never achieves?

Guys, I must be missing something architecturally at M-P...what is it?  What is it that makes that course still relevant to the discussion, with PN right next door.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Mike,

       If you are a big hitter then Mid-Pines is simply too short.

       However if you are like me then its just right.

       Put me down firmly in the I love Mid-Pines group. I think the fact that it is a relic makes it that even more appealing. I thought it was well routed, an easy walk and nice greens. 

       I haven't played the new and improved Pine Needles but I think they serve different purposes.


   

[John Kavanaugh]

Strange, I feel exactly the opposite.  I felt that Pine Needles was a mishmash of Ross's most boring greens and uninteresting templates.  I enjoyed Mid-Pines much more and at the very least felt it was a great value.  

[Craig Van Egmond]

Darn, JK likes Mid-Pines, is it too late to change my answer?   

[Brad Tufts]

I think one has to look upon them in terms of what they were meant to be: two complimentary courses, one fit for tournament play, one fit for a more relaxed style of play.

I honestly thought Pine Needles was more difficult before the restoration/renovation, with the smaller more crowned greens.  The new layout might be closer to the original, but all the greens seem bigger and flatter.  Despite this, I think PN is a great tournament venue for the USWO, and for high-caliber amateurs (probably short of the US AM though).

Mid Pines is a charming, shortish course fun features that test your short iron play with subtle contours and elevation changes.  The par fives may be reachable, but each one presents a long second with a bit of awkwardness to contend with.  I still maintain that MP has more "fun holes to play" than PN.  Holes like #4 with the fall-off angled green, #12 with the weirdly-shaped green, and #18 with the tight drive, great green, and Inn behind the green.

[Bill_McBride]

I really liked the routing of Mid Pines better, with many holes playing from elevated tees into valleys and approaches up hill to greens set on ridges.  I really, really liked the tees that in some cases weren't more than 20-30 yards from the preceding green.  I liked the long par 3 after I hit driver to 2". 

Like those responding above, I thought it was a relaxing walk with a bunch of good holes.  The 18th with the lovely big old clubhouse/hotel behind was great.

We played/walked Mid Pines in the morning and Pine Needles in the afternoon, so maybe I would have like Pine Needles better if I had been fresher, but I really preferred Mid Pines.

[Mike Hendren]

No thrills, no chills, no frills - mere quintessence.  Just what a golf course should be. 

[Sean_A]

Mike

I would say you missed a cracking start to a round.  The opening trio of holes are very good and I especially like the 3rd - a crafty hole if ever there was one.

I believe it was the 12th, a dogleg left with the green sort sliding down a hill.  I really liked how Ross left the right/high side of the fairway wide open.  Players find out why when they try to approach the green from that angle.

There are a few other holes which stand out, but I would say two of the best elements of the course are the width of fairways (necessary for some of the canted slopes) and the green sites.  I prefer Mid Pines because it is a more manageable course in terms of walking and playing , but I accept that Pine Needles is slightly better.  Both are too expensive, luckily Southern Pines is just down the road and I prefer this to either M-P or P-N.

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

No thrills, no chills, no frills - mere quintessence.  Just what a golf course should be. 

Michael - you just said in a few words, in TWO words actually, what I've tried to say about every course that Sean A has ever profiled here: "mere quintessence".  Yup. Yes, sir. Thanks.

Peter

[Richard Hetzel]

You, IMO, are missing quite a bit. Very classic, yet simple, Ross.

I loved Mid Pines, especially the 18th hole!




I thought it was a classic, not overly long, test of golf. Here are a few pics...





[img]

[John Moore II]

I don't think you missed a lot at Mid Pines. I thought it was an OK course, but one of the poorest Ross courses in the area. I mean, I am a long hitter, but you can be short and still have character, Southern Pines does. I just felt Mid Pines was boring. Though I would like to play it with persimmon woods, old irons and balata balls. #12 I did think was a good hole, as with 13 (I think, the long par 3 on the back). I just did not think it lived up to the hype.

[Thomas MacWood]

JKM
Why is Mid-Pines one of the poorest Ross courses in the area; where does it fall in your pecking order; what was boring about the course?

I haven't play Pine Needles since they restored it (or the advent of clubs that allow you to hit the ball stupid distances) but IMO Mid Pines is the most pure Ross in the area. Pine Needles' routing has been changed and at least one hole is not original. Southern Pines has been redesigned considerably over the years. #1 and #3 have been tweeked and #2 is nowhere near its architectural high point. Did I miss any other Ross courses?

If given the choice of where to play day in and day out I'd choose MP over the others because of the strength of the routing, its intimacy, the gently rolling terrain, the walkablitlity, the green complexes, the bunkering and the fun factor.

[Thomas MacWood]

I've played both Mid-Pines and Pine Needles.

M-P underwhelmed.  There was so little there, it seemed a relic.

Not an antique, a relic.  When I play PN it seems like I'm playing what M-P is supposed to be on its best day, but never achieves?

Guys, I must be missing something architecturally at M-P...what is it?  What is it that makes that course still relevant to the discussion, with PN right next door.

I take it you're not much of a Ross fan. IMO MP is quintessential Ross.

I don't understand your comment about PN being what MP is supposed to be. Please explain.

IMO the two courses are completely different due primarily to the fact the sites are totally different. The terrain at PN is much more severe and as consequence the scale of the two courses is quite different. PN is spread out over the site & is bigger and MP is much more intimate. Did you walk?

[Jim Sweeney]

Play it with hickories!

Great routing.

Appeals to a wide variety of golfers.

Solid hole after solid hole, a handful of truly great holes.

Lots of angles wich equals high strategic interest. Bomb away all you want, but be precise or your score will suffer.

Lack of high maintenance "fluff" seen at many resorts-  flower beds, etc., supports the Bell family's philosophy that this is about golf, nothing else.

History history, history.

[John Moore II]

JKM
Why is Mid-Pines one of the poorest Ross courses in the area; where does it fall in your pecking order; what was boring about the course?

I haven't play Pine Needles since they restored it (or the advent of clubs that allow you to hit the ball stupid distances) but IMO Mid Pines is the most pure Ross in the area. Pine Needles' routing has been changed and at least one hole is not original. Southern Pines has been redesigned considerably over the years. #1 and #3 have been tweeked and #2 is nowhere near its architectural high point. Did I miss any other Ross courses?

If given the choice of where to play day in and day out I'd choose MP over the others because of the strength of the routing, its intimacy, the gently rolling terrain, the walkablitlity, the green complexes, the bunkering and the fun factor.

Tom--The others just 'felt' better than Mid Pines. Now that you mention them all, I would probably say MP would be between #1 and #3, but behind the rest. I felt MP didn't sit as well on the land as the others do and had less exciting, strategic holes than the others. While it did have some good holes, it was not as good as the others. If I had to put in order, #2, Needles, SP, #1, Mid Pines, #3. Of course, most magazines don't see it that way.

[Jay Flemma]

Play it with hickories!

Great routing.

Appeals to a wide variety of golfers.

Solid hole after solid hole, a handful of truly great holes.

Lots of angles wich equals high strategic interest. Bomb away all you want, but be precise or your score will suffer.

Lack of high maintenance "fluff" seen at many resorts-  flower beds, etc., supports the Bell family's philosophy that this is about golf, nothing else.

History history, history.

But history is not architecture.  I'm wondering if we might give Ross a pass too often sometimes...it seems like the bunkering in the photos around the greens looks repetetive - five o'clock, seven o'clock?  Where are the cross hazards?

I see us saying a lot of thinigs like "simple" and "relaxed" as though this were a "change of pace" course from playing trhe big boys, but if Tom Fazio designed it, or someone we never heard of - say, Craig Chatfield, would it have the same cachet?

[Sean_A]

Play it with hickories!

Great routing.

Appeals to a wide variety of golfers.

Solid hole after solid hole, a handful of truly great holes.

Lots of angles wich equals high strategic interest. Bomb away all you want, but be precise or your score will suffer.

Lack of high maintenance "fluff" seen at many resorts-  flower beds, etc., supports the Bell family's philosophy that this is about golf, nothing else.

History history, history.

But history is not architecture.  I'm wondering if we might give Ross a pass too often sometimes...it seems like the bunkering in the photos around the greens looks repetetive - five o'clock, seven o'clock?  Where are the cross hazards?

I see us saying a lot of thinigs like "simple" and "relaxed" as though this were a "change of pace" course from playing trhe big boys, but if Tom Fazio designed it, or someone we never heard of - say, Craig Chatfield, would it have the same cachet?

Jay

I don't hear anybody saying Mid-Pines is a great course.  The vibe I pick up is that the course is generally recommended if you are in the area.  Personally, I can't see what there is to dislike and I have a lot of time for it.  I think Mid-Pines is a solid fall back on course if in the area or one to fill out an itinerary.

To answer your question, of course Ross gets the benefit of the doubt.  Doesn't every single famous archie out there get the benefit of the doubt?  Don't forget though, to get the benefit, one has to have created a lot of great stuff. 

Ciao

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I love the routing of mid pines as well. It is a dreamy short course with terrific green complexes. PN was ok, ie another good solid course, but not worthy of making an effort to play over many others in area.

[Thomas MacWood]

JKM
Why is Mid-Pines one of the poorest Ross courses in the area; where does it fall in your pecking order; what was boring about the course?

I haven't play Pine Needles since they restored it (or the advent of clubs that allow you to hit the ball stupid distances) but IMO Mid Pines is the most pure Ross in the area. Pine Needles' routing has been changed and at least one hole is not original. Southern Pines has been redesigned considerably over the years. #1 and #3 have been tweeked and #2 is nowhere near its architectural high point. Did I miss any other Ross courses?

If given the choice of where to play day in and day out I'd choose MP over the others because of the strength of the routing, its intimacy, the gently rolling terrain, the walkablitlity, the green complexes, the bunkering and the fun factor.

Tom--The others just 'felt' better than Mid Pines. Now that you mention them all, I would probably say MP would be between #1 and #3, but behind the rest. I felt MP didn't sit as well on the land as the others do and had less exciting, strategic holes than the others. While it did have some good holes, it was not as good as the others. If I had to put in order, #2, Needles, SP, #1, Mid Pines, #3. Of course, most magazines don't see it that way.

The others felt better....what does that mean?

[Thomas MacWood]

Play it with hickories!

Great routing.

Appeals to a wide variety of golfers.

Solid hole after solid hole, a handful of truly great holes.

Lots of angles wich equals high strategic interest. Bomb away all you want, but be precise or your score will suffer.

Lack of high maintenance "fluff" seen at many resorts-  flower beds, etc., supports the Bell family's philosophy that this is about golf, nothing else.

History history, history.

But history is not architecture.  I'm wondering if we might give Ross a pass too often sometimes...it seems like the bunkering in the photos around the greens looks repetetive - five o'clock, seven o'clock?  Where are the cross hazards?

I see us saying a lot of thinigs like "simple" and "relaxed" as though this were a "change of pace" course from playing trhe big boys, but if Tom Fazio designed it, or someone we never heard of - say, Craig Chatfield, would it have the same cachet?

I take it you aren't crazy about #2 and Pine Needles' lack of cross hazards too. What golf course in the country doesn't have bunkers at five o'clock or seven o'clock. Those handful of pictures did not look repitive to me, and IMO Ross's portfolio is very diverse. Aren't you one of the biggest promoters of Jim Engh? 

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

The Hillbilly got it right. Well said Mike

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Although I found Pine Needles to be a tougher test and certainly in much better shape, I could not help but appreciate the "pure' nature of mid pines.
I truly felt as though this was a course that is relatively unchanged from what Ross had produced 100 years ago.
Some of the green complexes..especially number 12..left me numbstruck by their simplicity but severity...the back of number 12 is exquisite. penal and simple.
The bunker complexes looked so original unlike those at Pine Needles which look exactly what they are, modern bunkers on a classic course.

I agree that technology has passed Mid Pines by in terms of yardage, but a great course to play without the driver in the bag to try and turn back the clock!

[Jim Sweeney]

Tom: What hole at Pine Needles is nor original? I have no doubt you are correct but I cannot pick it out in my mind, and think noone would if they did not know and were not looking for it. I do know that 14 and 15 had had their pars reversed at one time but that was corrected in the restoration.

Jay: Of course history is not architecture, but architecture does help us appreciate history, and MidPines does so for me. What qualifies as a cross bunker? There are bunkers at MidPines that jut into the fairways even though they do not cross all the way; i.e., one may be in the fairway and be required to play over them. There are bunkers on several holes- 5 and 8 come to mind, that front the green abnd extend across the line of play. But the real question is whether or not this was a Ross staple. It seems that I have seen more cross bunkers on Tillinghast, McKenzie and McDonald/Raynor courses than on Ross courses. Not that my experience is anyting like yours, and certainly many clubs have removed bunkers over time. I just haven't seen it.

Many posters here lament the lack of courses that have appeal for a wide variety of players. Mid Pines has that quality.

[Thomas MacWood]

Jim
It is the par-3 on the back nine with the green sitting in a natural amphitheater. I believe it is #12 or #13.

[Jay Flemma]

Play it with hickories!

Great routing.

Appeals to a wide variety of golfers.

Solid hole after solid hole, a handful of truly great holes.

Lots of angles wich equals high strategic interest. Bomb away all you want, but be precise or your score will suffer.

Lack of high maintenance "fluff" seen at many resorts-  flower beds, etc., supports the Bell family's philosophy that this is about golf, nothing else.

History history, history.

But history is not architecture.  I'm wondering if we might give Ross a pass too often sometimes...it seems like the bunkering in the photos around the greens looks repetetive - five o'clock, seven o'clock?  Where are the cross hazards?

I see us saying a lot of thinigs like "simple" and "relaxed" as though this were a "change of pace" course from playing trhe big boys, but if Tom Fazio designed it, or someone we never heard of - say, Craig Chatfield, would it have the same cachet?

I take it you aren't crazy about #2 and Pine Needles' lack of cross hazards too. What golf course in the country doesn't have bunkers at five o'clock or seven o'clock. Those handful of pictures did not look repitive to me, and IMO Ross's portfolio is very diverse. Aren't you one of the biggest promoters of Jim Engh? 

1.  Jim isnt 5 o'clock 7 oclock, he uses center line bunkers.  Have you played any engh? 

#2 and PN are better executed, more interesting, have better greens and are in better shape than M-P.  M-P underwhelms me, thats all.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()