Pinehurst No. 2

[Steve Okula]

Has anyone been there lately? Is it still maintained in the same rugged manner as it was presented for the U.S. Open? If so, how is that working as a business model, are people paying the fee to play there?

[John Kavanaugh]

Me and seven of my closest friends played Super Bowl weekend.  It was in perfect condition.   My one and only fault is that the entire property is played as a waste area.  Without your own personal rules official it would be difficult to play anything resembling real golf.  I would prefer that everything be played as a hazard, which also is not an equitable solution.

It remains a world class destination and an outstanding value during our time line unless you have a problem with mandatory caddies.

[Gib_Papazian]

Gillette,

Did your imaginary friends have to take caddies too?

7:42 Tee Time:

John Kavanaugh
Barny f
Jaka b
Gillette Silver

7:52 Tee Time

Kenny Lee Puckett
Roy McAvoy
Al Czervik
Pat Pemberton (even though you're horribly sexist)

[Joe Bausch]

I played there not long ago, so judge for yourself Steve!

http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/albums/PinehurstNo2/

Note:  caddies were not required the day I played there, but I gladly took one (fellow's name was Doak!) and had a tidy 3h 15m round before a storm like that with the Bishop in Caddyshack came through.

But those taking carts were restricted to cart path only (forecaddy wasn't even required; something they may want to implement, IMHO).

[Jay Mickle]

   My one and only fault is that the entire property is played as a waste area. 

Mid Pines now plays that way also. When the renovation was first done those sand hazards completely surrounded by grass played as bunkers all other areas played as waste areas. There were I believe only 13 bunkers on the course.  It all seemed rather self explanatory to me but caused great confusion among the masses. I believe that was also how #2 played post renovation. When in doubt dumb it down.

[Brent Hutto]

I have nothing against bunkers nor against "waste areas" nor against oddball combinations of the two. But it always seems strange to me that such a bunch of self-identified purists as the members of this forum are so doggedly opposed to treating an entire golf course as "through the green", regardless of whether a given square foot under you ball is sand or grass or sandy grass or grassy sand or some unnameable mixture.

Can't that be viewed not as "dumbing down" but rather as a simpler return to the roots of the game? Wasn't golf or something very much like golf played before the idea of a "bunker" as a "hazard" was formalized?

Heck for that matter I'd be perfectly happy if no concept of "hazards" had never been created. Play everything as "through the green" and if you can't find or play your ball then proceed as you would any other lost ball or unplayable lie. Yeah I know that's a cloud-cuckoo-land concept and I'm not seriously advocating for such radical simplicity. But I think having a bunch of unraked or seldom raked sand with random lies (and/or random clumps of grass or turn) versus being able to ground your club (and/or take practice swings) is a perfectly croumulent tradeoff.

[Peter Pallotta]

Brent - that's my thinking too, and unless I'm missing and/or misunderstanding something the 'whole course as waste area' approach seems not only simple enough but simply the root/roots of the game.

Gib - thanks for the laugh. I'm almost embarrassed that I read JK's post and actually thought he'd gone to play with 7 other people (actual human beings, distinct and separate and tangibly real, whether true friends or not).

Peter

[Brent Hutto]

PP,

This "waste area" thing has been on my mind lately as I recently changed membership from the club where I'd been for 10 years to another club with a very different golf course. One of the ways it is different is there's acres and acres of sandy, scrubby semi-maintained area that used to mostly be rough (with maybe a few bunkers here and there, not sure). We also have formalized bunkers as well. But lots of opportunities  to play or duff shots from just your basic hardpan sand with wire grass clumps. Not entirely different from the New #2.

There's no way anyone would be in favor of treating all those acres of sand as "hazards". Partly because they're already harder to play from than the raked, formal-hazard bunkers. Partly because they represent maybe 10% or so of the "through the green" area of the course.

But mostly because a big reason for returning those from turf to "waste area" was to save on expense and labor. If the grounds crew had to maintain every bit of that area so as to have a clearly demarcated boundary where "through the green" ends and "hazard" begins then we'd need a Pinehurst or at least Mid-Pines maintenance budget to pay for it!

[Don Mahaffey]

that such a bunch of self-identified purists as the members of this forum

When did one man become a bunch?

[Eric Smith]

When did one man become a bunch?

JakaB = One Man Gang  

[Brent Hutto]

The last time there was a long thread discussing bunkers there were at least a dozen individuals in favor of *not* raking bunkers because that's more in keeping with what I'd consider a "purist's" definition of a hazard. Similar discussion on any number of other topics decrying any attempt to regularize or prettify golf courses. Not to mention the contingent that believes trees (outside of a handful of magnificent specimens, perhaps) have no place on a golf course.

I think various forms of more-purist-than-thou are the dominant strain of opinion on this forum.

[Philip Hensley]

I played there MLK weekend.

We took caddies, but carts are always cart-path only at all time now. Don't remember what the forecaddie policy was for cartballers. Although why anyone would want to cart on #2 I'll never understand. Cartballer members slowed the pace of play down all day. We had a 3-ball member cartball group in front of us and waited on every hole. A nice, tight 5+ hour round.

If you walk you must have a caddie. We were going with double bag caddies but because they had an excess of caddies that day, they gave us each a caddie for no extra charge.

All areas are now considered waste area. Two years ago when I played there they distinguished between bunkers and waste area. Any bunker that was completely surrounded by grass was considered a hazard. Not sure what facilitated the change but they just made everything a waste area.

The changes seemed to have brought a renewed interest to the course, and the reduction in water use has surely saved money. Our caddies said they will water the fairways in the spring as the bermuda comes out of dormancy, and then after that they let nature dictate the playing conditions (and turf color) and don't water except in extreme weather circumstances (which we have not really had here in NC since the restoration). That's why the turf was a nice brown during the US Open last year, and in late-July/August was a dark green because of all the rain during that time.

[John Kavanaugh]

I would be shocked if the renovation saves money on maintenance. The money saved on the water bill is being spent to maintain the waste areas. While I was rarely in the waste areas, when I was they were pristine.

[Kyle Harris]

What is a waste area and where can I find the definition of such in the Rules of Golf or an appropriate local rule?

Oh wait, I won't be able to.

It's all through-the-green unless it's a hazard (bunker, lateral, or water), putting green, or teeing ground.

Do nothing to improve your lie *always* applies.

[John Kavanaugh]

Kyle,

The problem arrives when the player takes practice swings inside greenside bunkers and then grounds his club behind the ball. It bastardizes the exercises. I have no problem removing sticks, pinecones and debris from a waste area. I don't get the need to take practice swings and ground your club.

[Philip Hensley]

I would be shocked if the renovation saves money on maintenance. The money saved on the water bill is being spent to maintain the waste areas. While I was rarely in the waste areas, when I was they were pristine.

I think it was Bill Coore that said there wouldn't be less maintenance, but rather different maintenance. As you stated the waste areas are maintained rather nicely, so it's not as if they just stay that way on their own.  I'm just not familiar enough with the process to know what the final outcome is regarding maintenance cost.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

The problem arrives when the player takes practice swings inside greenside bunkers and then grounds his club behind the ball. It bastardizes the exercises. I have no problem removing sticks, pinecones and debris from a waste area. I don't get the need to take practice swings and ground your club.

I agree with you on this point.

And that's the whole gripe I have with the idea of the "Waste Area" in general. It divides areas of the golf course that do not need division.

Nothing in rules compels a grounded club, nor a practice swing, and therefore it seems reasonable to not do those things when in doubt.

[John Kavanaugh]

It is far easier to distinguish between a waste area and a bunker than to find three honest golfers for a friendly competition.  So, we all play like a bunch of numb nutted ball kickers. Welcome to resort golf.

What gets me is that I travel to play the pinnacle of amateur competitive golf and am encouraged by the stewards of the facility to cheat. Hell, the starter even insisted on breakfast balls.  This after lying to us about the yardage from the up set of tees. Who decided to throw honor out the window?  We were told a 6000 yd course was 6400 yds. I don't need to reach every par 5 in two, or for that matter, every par 4.

[Philip Hensley]

That, or they do the "it's listed as X yards, but plays like X+500 yards".

[Andrew Bernstein]

Random hypothetical for the crowd: would the 3rd hole be more interesting and a better hole overall without the bunker left of the green? I can imagine a steep, undulating slope from green to fairway that would still punish wayward shots but allow a better chance of recovery. Would better and/or longer players be more tempted to go for the green?

Edit: Let me clarify on the "go for the green" comment. I know it played pretty long for the 2014 Open most days, but they did move the tees up during the week. Without that bunker, I think playing the hole from about 325 becomes very intriguing.

[John Kavanaugh]

The "Mike Davis" tees are nonexistent. There is no possible way for any golfer with an ounce of concern for the other players on the course to play or even take the time to imagine them. By the time you wait for the 3rd green to clear the group behind would be walking off the 2nd green wondering what was up. As far as normal conditions apply, the bunker to which you refer is one of very few of any interest. After a modest drive I was faced with an 100 yd approach to a tucked pin. The bunker played a vital and interesting role, I even found it one day. It is somewhat perfect as is, despite Mike Davis.

[Andrew Bernstein]

The "Mike Davis" tees are nonexistent. There is no possible way for any golfer with an ounce of concern for the other players on the course to play or even take the time to imagine them. By the time you wait for the 3rd green to clear the group behind would be walking off the 2nd green wondering what was up. As far as normal conditions apply, the bunker to which you refer is one of very few of any interest. After a modest drive I was faced with an 100 yd approach to a tucked pin. The bunker played a vital and interesting role, I even found it one day. It is somewhat perfect as is, despite Mike Davis.

What tees am I imagining? The very back? That's fine if we throw those out of the equation.

The normal back tee plays 350 yards, the middle tees 330. Which marker did you play?

I like the bunker left of the green. It has to be one of the most intimidating on the course. But just because I like it doesn't mean that the hole couldn't theoretically be improved without it. It's penal nature usually forces player into the exact play you made: layup to the middle left of the fairway and then try to hoist a shot over it. Without that bunker, the option for driving closer to the green would be more appealing. That 25-50 yard pitch up the steep hill (or a bump and run, or a long putt, or a...) could be more interesting.

[Blake Conant]

Me and seven of my closest friends played Super Bowl weekend.  It was in perfect condition.   My one and only fault is that the entire property is played as a waste area.  Without your own personal rules official it would be difficult to play anything resembling real golf.  I would prefer that everything be played as a hazard, which also is not an equitable solution.

It remains a world class destination and an outstanding value during our time line unless you have a problem with mandatory caddies.

You seem to have more than one and only fault.

[John Kavanaugh]

I love the bunker on the third hole. We played what I would call the members tees, I think white. I am not a fan of Mike Davis teeing off the pros in front of even these tees to create drivable par 4's outside the scope of the original architecture.

I do hope to God that you are not suggesting changing the complexity of a greensite to accommodate a player capable of driving a 350 yard hole.

[Andrew Bernstein]

Hoping to God seems a bit dramatic for all of this.

I was suggesting the "back" tees to be played at 325 yards, not 350. Member's tees could play at or under 300 yards. I'm not in favor of altering the course (or even just this hole) for this exercise, just to consider how the hole might play and if it could provide additional excitement. Besides, if Pinehurst saw me out there with a shovel and some dirt, they might react poorly.