Isn't this what we have been waiting for?!

[Ran Morrissett]

The merit of No. 2's restoration was just highlighted to me by the play of the two Ulster men at the 18th.
 
Graeme hit a pull off the fairway and the sandy soil retarded his ball from advancing. He faced a shot of over 200 yards from a crummy angle. He hit a splendid shot that landed on the green, rolled to within 15 feet of the hole before eventually trickling one inch off the green. He could have made birdie/he could have made bogey but he two putted for par. Some might say it was (yawn!) UNFAIR that his approach didn't stay on the green but he was out of position from the tee. The resulting poor angle proved to be suitable punishment.
 
His fellow countryman Rory bombed one down the middle and had an approach ~70 yards shorter than Graeme’s. He used the loft and spin of his short iron to ensure that the ball sat down quietly. From there, he made a short-ish birdie putt.
 
The worst shot of the bunch was certainly Graeme's tee ball and the best shot may have been his approach. He was given an opportunity to recover and he do so with an exceptional play.  Meanwhile, Rory's sparkling ball striking was rewarded as well.
 
Isn't this - FINALLY - the kind of golf that we have espoused on this site for fifteen years??? Great to FINALLY see it in a major championship in the United States.

Congratulations to the Pinehurst team, C&C and Mike Davis.

Best,

[Jason Thurman]

I saw about three missed fairways during the hour I watched over lunch. And yet, scores aren't going very low, and they're only going to get higher as the course firms up over the next day or two. Perhaps No. 2 is also proving that width can still be challenging.

Still, I fear the course's merits are going to be lost on most. No. 2 is a staggeringly complex course, to a point I suspect that goes beyond the recognition of the average viewer. I have a feeling I'll be talking to a lot of people in the next few days who call it a "Goat track with a basic design and tricked up greens."

[John Kavanaugh]

Ran,

I personally was disappointed that Graeme's shot from the scruff at a poor angle stayed within inches of the putting surface. Now I know it is only Thursday morning, but these soft greens do not compliment the design.  Perhaps a better scenario would have been to let the ladies play first so the greens could be baked for the men.

[Scott McWethy]

My friends and I often have this conversation about US Open sites.  The topic of if the USGA was going to hold this tournament on just one course, which would you choose.  For me, it is Pinehurst #2.  I think this course has everything a US Open should be about and the restoration is stunning.  I love the fact that all the conversations with the media and on the golf channel aren't about the rough and how thick and high it is.  It's nice to see everyone talk about the different strategies these players will use this week, other than just hacking it back into the fairway when they hit a wayward drive.  This is fun to watch!

[Mark McKeever]

This will certainly be a fun week to watch!!

Mark

[Jim_Kennedy]

I think they hit it on the screws with this set-up, a near-perfect combo for American golf.

[Tom Ferrell]

From Johnny Miller in HotLinks, a new online magazine from LINKS (I could not disagree more but thought y'all would like to see it)...

"Every major has to have its own character, and the US Open is about the rough. These guys hit it so far now if you don't give them the highest rough of the year, the Open sort of just becomes another type of tournament.  So if I were running the Open, my maind goal would be to have four to six inches of rough, longer rough on the short par 4s and a littler shorter on the long par 4s. I love Merion because that was some real Open rough there. I also don't believe the fairways should play firm and fast, because good drivers can get penalized by rolling into the rough."

Good year for a last US Open for Johnny?

[Paul Gray]

Without wishing to claim that the whole world of golf chaged and we are no entering a prolonged period of golfing utopia this indeed IS IT!

At this point it seems only right that we all pat Ran et al on the back for providing a site which promotes this very scenario. To those of you responsible for the site, we all own you a debt of gratitude. Thank you.

[Mike Hendren]

While I agree, aren't we ignoring the elephant in the room:  A par 70 course playing 7562 yards with five two shotters longer than 485 yards?   Has the treehouse fallen in love with the visuals and will we henceforth be estopped from decrying the distance dilemna?

Just wondering.  

Bogey

[Scott McWethy]

From Johnny Miller in HotLinks, a new online magazine from LINKS (I could not disagree more but thought y'all would like to see it)...

"Every major has to have its own character, and the US Open is about the rough. These guys hit it so far now if you don't give them the highest rough of the year, the Open sort of just becomes another type of tournament.  So if I were running the Open, my maind goal would be to have four to six inches of rough, longer rough on the short par 4s and a littler shorter on the long par 4s. I love Merion because that was some real Open rough there. I also don't believe the fairways should play firm and fast, because good drivers can get penalized by rolling into the rough."

Good year for a last US Open for Johnny?

Tom, I agree with you completely.  I used to love the US Open with all the high rough because most of the tournaments during the year aren't anything like that.  However, I love the imagination these players have to use around a course like Pinehurst.  I'd much rather watch these pros play a course like this compared to going to Winged Foot or Oakland Hills and just hacking it back into the fairway from 6 inches of rough.  Not much strategy there.  JMO.

[Terry Lavin]

While I agree, aren't we ignoring the elephant in the room:  A par 70 course playing 7562 yards with five two shotters longer than 485 yards?   Has the treehouse fallen in love with the visuals and will we henceforth be estopped from decrying the distance dilemna?

Just wondering.  

Bogey

All of your truth-telling is getting in the way of me hearing the angels sing.

[Greg Tallman]

While I agree, aren't we ignoring the elephant in the room:  A par 70 course playing 7562 yards with five two shotters longer than 485 yards?   Has the treehouse fallen in love with the visuals and will we henceforth be estopped from decrying the distance dilemna?

Just wondering.  

Bogey

But with the firm and fast conditions the 530 yard par 4 only plays about 500 

[Brent Hutto]

As usual Bogey nails it. But I've got to say, on my personal scale (the I Wanna Go There (tm) index) those "visuals" put it in the very top tier of recent US Open venues as far as I'm concerned.

Regarding Ran's point...

The recovery shots, the uncertainty of greenside outcomes prolonged until the ball COMPLETELY stops rolling, the chance for creativity and imagination to come into play whether from sandy areas or low-mow collection zones surrounding the green all make for a fascinating spectacle.

Playing at might-as-well-be-8,000 yards is simply a contingent fact of recent golf history. If it takes that much real estate to create a canvas for all the creative variety this setup can allow then so what. I'm not paying the bills. One could certainly imagine long-ass major championship venues that are uglier and more boring to play and watch than this year's event.

[Phil McDade]

While I agree, aren't we ignoring the elephant in the room:  A par 70 course playing 7562 yards with five two shotters longer than 485 yards?   Has the treehouse fallen in love with the visuals and will we henceforth be estopped from decrying the distance dilemna?

Just wondering.  

Bogey

Bogey:

Wait for a few years and the USGA may very well push Erin Hills to close to -- maybe at -- 8,000 yards. There's easily enough room there to do so. Greg's comment is somewhat spot on -- if you run the fairways fast and firm, you're effectively negating some (not all) of the length of the course. The USGA got perfect conditions leading up to the US Am at Erin Hills a few years ago, and that place really raced.

[John Kavanaugh]

Brent,

Back when I played as a civilian the rough was non-existant.  If you choose to play in the future expect the scruff to be worse than what you see today.  Just what we been waiting for, a course tougher for us than what was presented at the US Open.

[Terry Lavin]

As usual Bogey nails it. But I've got to say, on my personal scale (the I Wanna Go There (tm) index) those "visuals" put it in the very top tier of recent US Open venues as far as I'm concerned.

Regarding Ran's point...

The recovery shots, the uncertainty of greenside outcomes prolonged until the ball COMPLETELY stops rolling, the chance for creativity and imagination to come into play whether from sandy areas or low-mow collection zones surrounding the green all make for a fascinating spectacle.

Playing at might-as-well-be-8,000 yards is simply a contingent fact of recent golf history. If it takes that much real estate to create a canvas for all the creative variety this setup can allow then so what. I'm not paying the bills. One could certainly imagine long-ass major championship venues that are uglier and more boring to play and watch than this year's event.

Well said.  We're seeing some links-like shots, some links-like turf and some big bouncing balls.  We're not seeing that much in terms of random shots out of the "stuff", but it's still the first day, so let's wait to see if this develops into an issue.  Finally, I totally agree that the "visuals" here are just great.  It's the sort of eye candy that can really recommend a golf course that is not on the ocean.  It seems to completely fit with the land on which it sits, and that is undeniably a good thing.

[John Kavanaugh]

From Johnny Miller in HotLinks, a new online magazine from LINKS (I could not disagree more but thought y'all would like to see it)...

"Every major has to have its own character, and the US Open is about the rough. These guys hit it so far now if you don't give them the highest rough of the year, the Open sort of just becomes another type of tournament.  So if I were running the Open, my maind goal would be to have four to six inches of rough, longer rough on the short par 4s and a littler shorter on the long par 4s. I love Merion because that was some real Open rough there. I also don't believe the fairways should play firm and fast, because good drivers can get penalized by rolling into the rough."

Good year for a last US Open for Johnny?

I enjoy Johnny but this is a classic case of why we should pay zero attention to what the pros say about golf courses and setups.

It is not just Johnny.  You would have to be a novice golfer to believe that the scruff as it exists today is more visually intimidating than typical US Open rough.  This is exactly why so few guys are missing fairways.  They are not intimidated.  A hazard that you fear will draw you near just like a woman you should avoid.

[Jud_T]

And to grace the proceedings of this monumental landmark event-  we are treated to the dulcet tones of Chris Berman and Curtis Strange. 

[Wayne_Kozun]

I enjoy Johnny but this is a classic case of why we should pay zero attention to what the pros say about golf courses and setups.

Exactly.  On the Tuesday night preview show Roger Matlbie was talking about Pinehurst and said "#2 is Donald Ross' masterpiece, at least in America, and then there is Doorknock(Sic) in Scotland."

Donald Ross designed Dornoch???  He was from Dornoch but he didn't design the course.

[Lester George]

That description is exactly what I have been waiting for, for sure. 

When the USGA defined "firm and fast" a few years ago there were only 5 American courses that met the criteria.  Ballyhack was on the list, which made our group happy because that was the design intent and it prevails today.  I do not remember who else was on the list (maybe someone could post that) but I don't think #2 was because it was pre-restoration.

So, yes Ran, some of us have been waiting for this day for quite some time.

Lester

[Howard Riefs]

And to grace the proceedings of this monumental landmark event-  we are treated to the dulcet tones of Chris Berman and Curtis Strange. 

Only one more day of this. We'll rejoice next June when FOX takes over.

[Tim_Weiman]

As usual Bogey nails it. But I've got to say, on my personal scale (the I Wanna Go There (tm) index) those "visuals" put it in the very top tier of recent US Open venues as far as I'm concerned.

Regarding Ran's point...

The recovery shots, the uncertainty of greenside outcomes prolonged until the ball COMPLETELY stops rolling, the chance for creativity and imagination to come into play whether from sandy areas or low-mow collection zones surrounding the green all make for a fascinating spectacle.

Playing at might-as-well-be-8,000 yards is simply a contingent fact of recent golf history. If it takes that much real estate to create a canvas for all the creative variety this setup can allow then so what. I'm not paying the bills. One could certainly imagine long-ass major championship venues that are uglier and more boring to play and watch than this year's event.

Brent,

Don't want to hijack thread, but it is good to see someone finally admit we are headed to 8,000 yard courses.

[Matthew Petersen]

While I agree, aren't we ignoring the elephant in the room:  A par 70 course playing 7562 yards with five two shotters longer than 485 yards?   Has the treehouse fallen in love with the visuals and will we henceforth be estopped from decrying the distance dilemna?

Just wondering.  

Bogey

Maybe we can focus on the fact that the course today is playing significantly shorter than that yardage and yet is still not yielding any very low scores.

Edit. Johnny Miller just said it's playing 7370 today. That's long for mortals, but not for these guys. And with wide fairways and very firm fairways.

[Kevin_D]

Yes!

[Terry Lavin]

From the original Confidential Guide:

"The making of Pinehurst No. 2 are the green complexes, which are quite simply the best I've seen on any course.  The slightly-raised, intricately contoured greens and the fairway-height bumps and hollows which surround them are identified by many amateur architecture buffs as the epitome of the Ross style, but in fact they are unlike almost all other Ross courses I've seen.  Some aficionados have also compared the greens at No. 2 to those of Ross' home, Royal Dornoch, generally bigger, more elevated, and more well-defined than those of No. 2.  It amazes me that a style so brilliant has never been copied or emulated by another designer, and one of these days, I'm going to try and imitate Pinehurst No. 2 myself, just to see if it can be done.

The unbelievable part about Pinehurst No. 2 is that the design goes right over the heads of a lot of people, who think the course is dull because it's so wide open off the tees, and because there's no obviously penal rough around the greens, going against the U.S. Open tradition."

Well said, Mr. Doak.  Any update?