The Original 8th Hole on Pinehurst #3

[Chris Buie]

The original 8th hole on #3 Course is now the 17th on #5 Course. In the 20's it was a 522 yard true 3 shot hole with interesting strategy and options. Now it is a straight ahead contemporary par-5 that can be reached in two.



On the original hole you had some bunkers to give your tee shot a bit of challenge. But the really interesting shot was the second. It wasn't a simplistic second par-5 shot where you hit it over the water or lay up. There were 3 different choices after a good tee shot. You could lay up in front of the very large and very angled bunker short of the sand green. That would be the safe play, of course. You could hit left of the giant bunker. Or you could attempt the bold shot and try to carry the bunker - leaving yourself a short pitch or chip - and a good chance for birdie.



Here is a close look at the original area near the green. Interesting waste area, interesting strategy, interesting hole all around.



It was re-designed by Ellis Maples in the early 60's to be a "members course". He did what was requested of him quite well because it is the course most played by members. The greens were (and still are) flattened and a lot of the "quirks" were removed.  It is 504 yards now, as well.



This photo shows the roll of the land. A bit downhill off the tee...



...and a significant amount of elevation on the approach.

[Steve Kline]

Good post Chris. It seems that over the years many of the unique design and strategic features have been removed from a number of holes to make the Pinehurst courses more playable.

[Chris Buie]

Thanks Steve.  I wonder what Maples thought when he was asked to 'smooth over' his mentors work?

[Ran Morrissett]

That is an unbelievable bunker, both for its size and position and there is nothing else like it in the sand hills of Moore County. What a  shame re: its loss!

In fact, in studying it more and more, where else in the country does a bunker of such size/magnitude dominate a par five hole like this Hell version once did?

Surely, some modern architects have successfully employed such a stratagem. What are the best examples?? Obviously, Old Mac's 6th has a Hell Bunker but where else and how about one that plays on such a diagonal?

Cheers,

[Jud_T]

Chris,

Where do you come up with all this great stuff?

[Mac Plumart]

Jud...

He lives in Pinehurst, the home of American golf.  It was Ross' home, the Tufts Archives are there, the great Pinehurst Resort, Pine Needles, Southern Pines...it is a golfing Mecca!!

[PCCraig]

Fantastic stuff Chris! Thank you for posting.

That cross bunker in front of the green looked really neat and it obviously dominated the hole and its strategy. I can understand why "members" wouldn't like having to carry it on a regular basis.

I really hope the restoration of #2 leads the resort into considering restoration on some of their other courses, even if it's on a small scale.

[Craig Disher]

The old #3 was just a great course and holds almost nothing in common with its current namesake. It's unfortunate that we don't have an oblique aerial of the entire course - the one Chris posted is from the Dallin collection at the Hagley Museum - or of #1 for that matter. The view of the first hole of course #1 also shows how much strategy was lost (this hole is gone, covered over by the very short first hole of the current #3) throughout the resort when the renovations were done in the 60s and 70s. The green is off the bottom of the photo.

[Chris Buie]

The original #3 Course of Pinehurst was a very compelling affair.  The terrain is still the same, of course.  And that land has more character than #2 does, actually.  I'll write a bit more later when I get the chance.  But here are some images (and a 1938 film clip even) for you to consider.

1922

Today - red numbers are part of #5 course and green numbers are #3 Course


The last photo above is courtesy of the Tufts Archives.

The holes shown in this film are the original #6 and the original #14.
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=17646

Also, I wrote about the evolution of the original 6th hole of #3 here:
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,41281.0.html

[Mike Hendren]

Perhaps C & C is working on the wrong golf course there.

Can you imagine?

Mike

[Mark McKeever]

That is an unbelievable bunker, both for its size and position and there is nothing else like it in the sand hills of Moore County. What a  shame re: its loss!

In fact, in studying it more and more, where else in the country does a bunker of such size/magnitude dominate a par five hole like this Hell version once did?

Surely, some modern architects have successfully employed such a stratagem. What are the best examples?? Obviously, Old Mac's 6th has a Hell Bunker but where else and how about one that plays on such a diagonal?

Cheers,

Hopefully we see one soon at Philadelphia Cricket Club!

Mark

[Chris Buie]

Ran is correct regarding that colossus.  Such an interesting bunker in so many ways - first and foremost strategically.  Aesthetically as well, of course - it is on an uphill slope so you would see it already taunting you on the tee box.  I like the psychological play of that - giving the golfer something to think about beforehand - and guess what? You were focused on that rather than your tee shot which you tumbled into those first bunkers!  Dummy.  
I don't recall seeing a hole designed quite like that either - how the land to the left of the bunker is brought in past the wire grass natural area - to give you a third option.  Certainly one of the more interesting scenarios Ross did in his entire portfolio.  Probably a unique one for him as well.  Does anyone know if he replicated this elsewhere?  I doubt it.  There is a slight similarity to the bunker 50 or so yards short of the 1st at Pine Needles.  It is small but exquisitely placed in similar relation to the green - which makes you either go for it or lay up - playing left is dodgy there because there is not much room and there would likely be a tree in your way.  I like that PN bunker because it is so innocuous yet so important strategically.  The bunker of #3 course is strategic, obviously - but it brings a high degree of drama to the landscape as well.  You are not just looking at the same greenery with little white patches for the whole show.
Strategic options are one of the key elements to good design, of course.  A lot of those highly strategic holes with options are 'half-par' holes - like 10 at Riviera.  This wasn't a half par hole though.  It was a full blooded 5 par - with three options, not two.  
Certainly a hole worth noting.

[RSLivingston_III]

What a tragedy! Not only the 8th but the other holes too. That must have been one fun course. In its prime, was it viewed as being better than #2? I assume it is known what #2 looked like at all the various stages of its changes. What is left of the original #3 holes looks like a snooze fest. Very FAIR.

[Chris Buie]

Ralph, I don't think #3 was ever regarded as better than #2.  It was and pretty much still is regarded as more preferable to play by the "average member".  The reason it is preferred now is the same reason it was back then - #2 is simply too hard for the average member.  #2 was a prototype championship course - a very demanding examination of your game from every aspect.  #3 was plenty challenging - but never to the extent that #2 was.  The two courses were symbiotic - one very challenging and one very fun.  It is the same dynamic he rendered just down Midland Road with Pine Needles and Mid Pines. 
Lets not entirely write off the remaining merits of #3 just yet.  I'll bore you with some minutiae on that account a bit later.  I'll let Ben Crenshaw put in a word now though regarding #3 in the modern age:
"I just don't think people understand how good those holes are. They're filled with interest."

[Terry Lavin]

Perhaps C & C is working on the wrong golf course there.

Can you imagine?

Mike

It really boggles the mind, when you look at some of these historic Pinehurst photographs that Chris brings our way.  It is truly a shame that so much has been lost, but if they have the financial motivation, perhaps the owners can take the restoration mode to a couple other of the courses.  I absolutely love #1 because it hasn't been lengthened and/or toughened, but I'm sure it's been dramatically altered over the course of time.

[Chris Buie]

OK, lets look a bit deeper into the original #3.  I had a fair amount of images of it at one point - not exactly sure where they've run off to.  Anyway, here is one I do have on hand:


See that square sand area (between the photographers point of view and the tee above)?  That was called a putting "clock".  That is what they used to call a practice green.


The first hole was nice and typical Ross.  He didn't want to beat you up right out of the gate - so a generous fairway and not terribly difficult.  It was 367 in the 20's though - and the approach was uphill (the same hill #8 played up to, in fact), so not entirely easy.  He calculated his challenge levels very precisely.
A pretty good amount of fellows waiting to tee off in the photograph.  It was busy then - often not easy to get a tee time - which is why he kept building more and more holes.  When he wasn't busy building he was refining them - especially the ones on the course in his backyard.  The proximity of his house to #2 Course did have a strong impact on how #2 ultimately turned out.

[RSLivingston_III]

Chris,
are you sure that isn't a group in the fairway standing with caddies? Not sure what the guy foreground right is doing swinging a club...
Could that be the 0th green to the right?

[Craig Disher]

The guy is either practicing or he's a lefty playing off the 10th tee.

Chris - This is a great postcard. Do you know if it's part of a set? It looks like the same vintage as the ones I've seen of Southern Pines.

[Chris Buie]

Hi Ralph, yes it is the angle I said - and that is the practice "clock".  The hole is now reversed - check the previously posted modern aerial.  The 1st hole of #3 is now where they originally had tennis courts - then lawn bowling.  You can see that area in Craig's photo earlier in the thread - left of the hole shown in the photo.  (The hole pictured in Craig's aerial still exists - slightly shorter -as the 1st hole of #5 Course).  The current 1st green is across the street (HWY 5) from where the 1st green is in the antiquarian photo.  The 10th tee Craig is correctly referring to is now the 3rd hole - which is still one of the better holes in Pinehurst.
Craig, yes, it is part of a series.  You can find nice reproductions in certain boutiques in town.  Here are a couple of others from the same company.  And speaking of profound bunkers, that is a great one to the left of the 9th green below.  The whole green complex then was particularly great.  

[Craig Disher]

 The 10th tee Craig is correctly referring to is now the 3rd hole - which is still one of the better holes in Pinehurst.

It's also one of the holes that was most affected by the 1970s condo construction. The original play up the right side challenging a large bunker and shortening the hole is now crowded by a concrete cart path, drainage and condo landscaping. A great golfing land form lost.  The green is still cool.

[Chris Buie]

The main difference on the original 10th is that there was a stream at the bottom of the hill back then.  The hole has not been shortened - in fact it plays a few yards longer than it did in the 20's.
I like the way the land goes straight off the tee - dips down sharply then curves to the right to a very elevated green.  The condos are an aesthetic distraction but they have not really changed how the hole plays.
There is a very wide area for your tee shot.

And this view from the original 11th tee shows the very nice movement of the land. 

Several holes were shortened to put in houses - and that is a pity.  The original 15th, 17th and 18th were significantly shortened.

[Mike Cirba]

Chris,

This is an absolutely fantastic thread.

I don't have much to add except I will be definitely looking to play courses #1 and #3 for the first time the next time I'm at Pinehurst.

Thanks for your time and the terrific documentation you're providing.

[Chris Buie]

Thanks for the compliments guys.
Like the rest of you bright chaps on here I would dearly like to see #3 closer to its original state.  Few people would enjoy that more than me.  Having said that, I really like several of the holes that Ellis Maples added.  I do not like what happened to that very distinctive 8th hole - but I doubt it was his idea.  I think he was asked to water down the course so Mr. and Mrs. Johnson didn't get their polyester slacks in a twist trying to deal with some of the challenging Ross scenarios.  And later on it had to be super green all over so the staff didn't have to listen to their shrill complaints.  They are complaining now even - about whats up with the #2 renovation.  Padgett and Dedman, especially Padgett deserves a huge amount of credit for going ahead with the bold move of renovating #2.  That took a great deal of intestinal fortitude.  Amazing.  But I digress.  Big surprise.
OK, I was babbling about how I think several holes that Mr. Maples added are very good.  Lets have a look.
This isn't such a good photo of the 9th tee shot on #5.  This 434 yard beast starts with a long uphill tee shot - bunker on the right crest to challenge the optimum angle...


...then it turns down to the right to a precariously placed green.  Hitting a longish approach to this green is no easy proposition.  You exacting fellows can decide for yourself but for me this is a well done hole.  I think the land moves around more interestingly on this part of the property than it does on #2.  Not saying it is a better course - it isn't - just that the land itself is more varied.


Here is an interesting bit for you.  The shot to the par-5 14th (5 Course) was originally the tee shot of the 221 yard 5th hole.  So Maples retained the same shot - just incorporated it into the new routing.  He may have moved it a bit to the left - but kept the dramatic looking shot.  The land dips way down before rising up to the green.  You have to hit a perfect tee shot on todays hole to reach the crest of the hill where the photo was taken. 



Got to leave and tee it up shortly but here a few more shots of Maples additions that I like.  I can explain them later if you like.
The current 17th on #3 - you can't quite see the wide area of fairway mounds in this photo.


17th Fairway - over left of the green is disastrous.


The short par-4 11th (3 Course) - a sinister green - and over the green is as difficult a recovery as you will see on #2 Course.


The 342 yard 12th (3 Course) - mounding to contend with your tee shot...


and an uphill approach to another very demanding green. 

[Craig Disher]

The main difference on the original 10th is that there was a stream at the bottom of the hill back then.  The hole has not been shortened - in fact it plays a few yards longer than it did in the 20's.
I like the way the land goes straight off the tee - dips down sharply then curves to the right to a very elevated green.  The condos are an aesthetic distraction but they have not really changed how the hole plays.
There is a very wide area for your tee shot.

I always thought the bunker on the right was Ross's. Apparently it was added later to discourage play on the right - perhaps away from the condos. The cement cart path is a nice touch    This 1941 aerial shows how much option there was on the hole, much more than now. The huge bunker (grass?) on the left might have caught a drive that ran down the hill and also served as a top-shot bunker for the 11th tee. Another thing I noticed is that there are small white lines running away from the fairway surface. Perhaps drainage from a slightly raised fairway surface. Anyway, given the topography which Chris's photos show, I think a lot has been lost on this hole.

[Chris Buie]

Well, sort of summarizing, #3 was a very compelling course.  An intentionally medium level challenge - but very interesting, with a lot of well designed, distinctive holes carved out of nicely rolling terrain.  In it's original state it was a minor gem and a course that would be enjoyed by almost anybody - including design aficionados.  It is too bad that it was modified.  So the question is how good is what's left?  I think the information above is pretty sufficient for you to draw your own conclusions - each person decides for themselves what they find appealing, of course.
I don't presume to give you any definitive answers about the course here.  I just tell you what I think and show you the information I have as best I can.  I do get asked often which courses I would recommend playing at the resort after #2.  If you are interested in an historic perspective I would say play #1 then #3.  #1 Course is closest to the original state.  That course was designed to be not very difficult to play.  The green complexes don't have those turtle backs and the roll off areas are (except for a few places) of minor difficulty.  It is an interesting track though and worth one play at least.  You can read the thread I wrote on #1 here:
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,41357.0.html
If I was visiting I would play that before #4 or #8.  #8 has very little to do with the historic Pinehurst golf style.  It's high appreciation by many is something of a mystery to me.  Personally, I play it several times a year simply because it has no houses on it!  It's a nature walk and I do love that.  Design wise it is a rough and tumble Fazio - that is, it's quite difficult - especially from the backs.  If they had made the grievous error of commissioning me to build #8 I would have been thinking of the original #3.  Medium difficulty, medium/short length with interesting twists and turns.  That would be more fun I think.  
#4 is pretty close to Ross's routing - otherwise it is a Fazio.  Fazio courses are all over.  If I was visiting Pinehurst I'd want the Pinehurst experience rather than the Fazio experience.
Today's #3 is a short course - but unlike #1 the green complexes are quite challenging.  There are many serious roll off areas and some of the greens are quite something to putt.  I'll tell you a small anecdote about the first hole of today's #3 that is pretty representative of how it the course plays overall.  One day last year I hit a good drive on the first and was left with short pitch.  I was feeling pretty good - pitching is one of the least bad parts of my game.  I hit what I thought was a nice pitch to the very elevated green and it catches the edge of the second tier and rolls back a long way.  I three putted for bogey.  The point being that although it is short, it is still challenging.  It is sort of entertaining to watch first timers on the course walk up thinking they are going to man handle this short track - and then watch them have their chips roll right back to them or stumble through some of the putts this course gives you.
I would say that there are many holes which play very similarly to how they did - and several of the holes that were added are good I think.  Again, you can draw your own conclusions from the info earlier in the thread as to whether it is worthy of playing - but I wouldn't hesitate to give it at least one go at some point.  
I'll leave you know with a few more photos to consider.
The approach to 18 from the right edge of fairway right.


The approach to the original 17th.


The view from the first green.  What golfer with an appreciation for the history of the game wouldn't enjoy this iconic view?