How skilled do you need to be to play Pinehurst #2?

[JakaB]

Matt Massei the director of golf at Pinehurst says in the latest issue of Putterboy:

"It takes a lot of skill, physically, emotionally and mentally.  No. 2 tests every facet of your game.  That's part of what makes it so special."

Is this a dangerous and misguided statement....

[John Foley]

#2 is a pleasent experience for anyone who wants to enjoy the place. You can very easily get around the place and not loose a ball. Yeah ther's OB early on, but very manageable.

Sounds like Mr. Massei is looking to pull in a better caliber of player. The only thing I would venture to add to his staement is

"It takes a lot of skill, physically, emotionally and mentally TO SCORE WELL.  No. 2 tests every facet of your game.  That's part of what makes it so special."


Other than that I don't have a problem w/ it

[JakaB]

Should Pinehurst steer golfers of low skill away from PHII...Sounds like a sad, sad thought to me.

[Scratch_Nathan]

Jaka - Long time since an exchange on Pasa.

Matt's comments misguided/dangerous?  Hmmm.  Maybe they're having a slow play problem and he's trying to keep hackers off No. 2?    

On the potentially misguided side... nobody who loves/appreciates golf should be discouraged from playing No. 2 and hopefully Matt is not effectively talking anyone out of it.  Has Bethpage's famous "highly skilled" sign stopped people from playing the Black?  Maybe it's convinced a few marginally interested players (who are unaware of the Black's quality) to go elsewhere, temporarily.  I don't think most people can resist looking at car wrecks forever, though.

Likely slow play is the only downside of having "unskilled" golfers play courses like No. 2 or the Black.

You don't need to be "skilled" to play any golf course...

Perhaps you need to be "skilled" to:
-  shoot less than three digits on No. 2.
-  hit (and stay on) greens in regulation on No. 2.
-  appreciate the unique challenges that the design presents

I personally don't put Pinehurst No. 2 among my favorites because of what I think are somewhat one-dimensional aesthetics and poor "playability" (for bogey+ golfers).  However, I'm not going out on a limb by saying it's a genius design and one of the finest courses in the world at identifying the best players.

[JLahrman]

Jaka, Pinehurst can fill up #2's tee sheets with no problem.  Is he steering people away from #2?  Or is he trying to steer high hdcps to the other courses there that low hdcps aren't likely to play?

I will say that I don't think there is anything about #2 that is going to grab a high hdcp's attention unless he or she is really into architecture.  You can play it without getting into too much trouble, which to me is what a lot of high handicaps with not much appreciation for architecture often expect out of such a great course.

[John Foley]

Scratch,

What are "One dimensional asthetics" and poor "playability" for boget+ golfers?

[Jeff Goldman]

Pinehurst No. 2 is great fun for almost all classes of golfers.  I played it twice in February, and, as Shivas and others can attest, at the moment I am an exceedingly crummy golfer (though I have lately seen signs of my former mediocrity) and loved it.  Tons of fun shots regardless of skill level, no forced carries, and you can basically use your putter off the tee if you have to.  We played with two golf pros and a member at Oakmont, and all of us were challenged to play at our respective bests.  No one lost a ball, and I was thrilled to par 3-4-5 and 8-10-12 the second day, while some of the lower handicaps tried to make birdies and got mashed.  The only people who should be discouraged from playing it are folks who like waterfalls and cliffs and will think it's a big nothing because it doesn't have any.

Jeff Goldman  

[Scott_Burroughs]

I can attest that Mr. Goldman, a man of infectious optimism, would set up pretty well at #2 with his low running fades.

I, OTOH, managed to actually hit a ball OB at #2 last year (with an iron off the tee, no less), and had at least 5-6 other horrid drives into places where I had no shot at reaching the greens in regulation.  Did I mention the seven 3-jacks?

When I actually did have an approach into a green that hit the green first, only once did a ball roll off (#9 and made par).

Keeping the ball in reasonable play and decent short game will do the trick.

[GeoffreyC]

When last I played #2 just before the US Open in 1999, the new grass on the greens created VERY difficult playing conditions.

A run of the mill 15hdp or higher will not lose any balls but unless they have soft hands and a deft touch they could spend all day ping-ponging their ball across the greens. The playability at PH #2 has changed quite a bit since I first played there in 1988 and the change from burmuda to G4 (?) bentgrass is the reason. A superintendent can corret me but I don't think G4 is meant to be played at much less then 10 on the stimp.  That's really tough given those slopes.

I heard numerous players complain that #2 was too hard, the fairways cut too low and they preferred the more lush conditions over at #7 and #8.

I don't think the statement is misguided at all. Given the stated preferences of Joe Golfer its an apt warning.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Bill,

I never said anything about losing a ball....I just hit one OB.  Found the ball.

I hit only 2 decent drivers on non-par 3's that day, on #1 and #18.

As you have professed to being before, I'm much more of a Wild Bill than a Steady Eddie.

Just got back from a trip that included 4 rounds of golf.  All were schizo rounds of bad fronts, good backs.

But yes, my game is often in serious trouble these days, it seems.  My one round with you 2 years ago was two 3-putt doubles and a missed 3-foot birdie putt on #2 en route to an 80.  Have only scored better with a GCAer once since then in approximately 30+ rounds.

[DMoriarty]

I like that the comment mentions emotional and mental skill, as well as just physical skill.  Makes it sound like there is more to it than just bashing over trouble.  

Also, I think challenging every facet of your game and enjoyable for all levels arent necessarily mutually exclusive.   A poor player can enjoy a great course, so long as he doesnt expect to come in at par . . .

I'll bet a better predictor of a novice player's enjoyment is how few  balls they have lost, as opposed to course rating or challenge for the top golfer.
 

[Scratch_Nathan]

John Foley -

I knew it wouldn't take long for somebody to jump on those two phrases.  If you've played there (which I'm sure you have or why would you bother?), I bet you have at least a little idea what I mean.  These are not outlandish criticisms of No. 2.  

"one dimensional aesthetics" - okay...the pines, the bunkering style, the straw, the flow of the land, small water hazard on one hole - you get a relatively similar look off nearly every tee box.  I do like consistency in a course so every hole looks like it belongs to the whole, however, a "Top 10" for me generally has more jaw dropping or brain tingling visually drama.  I'm a sucker for courses where I can remember every individual hole after my first round.  Aesthetic differences are very subtle there.  It's just my opinion that while No. 2 does have has a classic and graceful flow for the eye, there's nothing that particularly grabs me and pulls at my gut to say "wow! off the tees.  Of course, that changes when I get near the putting surfaces.  There is so much genius to absorb in those green complexes.  I just prefer a little more drama off the tees, too.  

"Poor playability for bogey+ golfers" - without a variety of short game shots in the repertoire, I think bogey golfers are forced to play a chip, pitch & pray game on No. 2.  And while I think the likely "back and forth across the greens" experience might have some novelty for an 18 handicap, I don't particularly think that it's "fair" for a moderately skilled golfer.  Then again, who said life (or golf) was fair.  Marginal shots are punished so severely around the greens that bogey golfers with lesser skills are disproportionally punished (and playing a shorter set of tees offers no relief from the beating.  Usually, you can adjust your beating, but not there.

Don't get me wrong, I think No. 2 is a work of genius to be revered and I appreciate its design uniqueness.  Ross accomplished something truly incredible.  However, if I had to play a Pinehurst course every day, it would be #7 or #4 and not #2, even though #2 is the superior design.  I don't think #7 or #4 are "better" because they're not.  But for me, a personal Top 10, for example, would have to pass my own "I could play here every day and be happy" test.

[John Foley]

Scratch,

Yes played #2 last fall and I loved it. Personal top 5.

Your right on the one dimenaion asthetics by your definition. There is really no "wow " factor off the tee. It's all a similar feeling. I would challenge you and say that # 9 has some wow when you look at a back right pin. If your looking for a visuall stimulation to move you then it's limited at #2. Have you played Tobacco Road? Iwould expect that to have more of a "wow" factor your looking for.

As for the poor playability for the bogey+ golfer I'd say thats a harsh criticism. Look at the typical set-up course with a lush greensite where if you miss the green/bunker you have one shot back to the green, the chip. This is just so one dimensional. At #2 you've got a wealth of variety. Chip, putt, flop , 3wood skidder, texas wedge. The options are endless.

I usually concur w/ you assement that a moderatley missed shot, punished harshly, does not make for good architecture. It's why I despise water and hate tree's. What makes it a non-issue in my mind is it's only around the greens where this occurs on #2. There is no harsh punishment on any par 4/5 tee shot. AS wild as I can be I never put the ball in a position where advancing the ball forward couldn't happen @ #2. The recovery option is so much easier than it is at a severly penal design.

As for personal opinions, I absolutely love the chipping area's around a well countoured green site. #2 is second to none in this case.

[Scratch_Nathan]

Fair enough John.  I don't think we have any argument on the merits of No. 2.  It's a unique and great test of golf and as you say, chipping areas and short game options that are second to none.

Our only difference is on the personal preference scale.  That's what makes gca an interesting place.

I have played Tobacco Road and I enjoyed it.  A unique golf experience that's not for everybody (hmm, that sounds familiar doesn't it?). There is cetainly a "wow" factor there.  But...don't get me wrong, I don't need 40 foot mounds of sand, 2 acre ravines, or cascading waterfalls for me to enjoy a course.  Classic lines and cool strategic options can make a profound, memorable and lasting impression just as effectively.

[Paul Richards]

Jaka:

Pinehurst #2 is one of the finest and fairest tests of golfers - no matter what his or her handicap.  All types of players will be challenged and will also have fun!

[Nick_Ficorelli]

for me, a good caddy made all the difference

[Patrick_Mucci]

JakaB,

Would it be a dangerous or misguided statement if Bethpage Black was substituted for Pinehurst # 2 ?

Do certain golf courses not require higher levels of skill in order to navigate them in a reasonable amount of time ?

[JakaB]

Patrick,

I have not played Bethpage...but solely judging by what I saw on TV at the recent open....I would say it would be a fair and accurate statement to require only adequately skilled golfers be allowed to play the Black.   Forgive me for my lack of field work in this regard...but does BpB have a set of tees which would allow a golfer of uncoordinated means a shot of even one glorious one putt par....because if it does..no man should rob a green fee paying patron that one brief moment of glory at a former and future US Open venue...

Pat....I see PhII as being 85% short game...and BpB being 85% ball striking...is this accurate and if it is does it clarify your quandry.   I would say certain golf courses require a golfer to pick up his ball and advance to the next hole to navigate a round in a reasonable amount of time...a precious skill indeed.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JakaB,

Interesting,

You've fallen prey to the, it's okay for one golfer to ruin the rounds of 180 other golfers syndrome, lest he be deprived of making his solitary one putt par, maybe.

Some people don't belong on any golf course.

When one's skill level is such that they will disrupt the flow of the golf course and ruin everyone else's round, they shouldn't be playing just because they can pay the green fee.

But, in these ages of "right of entitlement" I guess anything goes.

Here, in the Metropolitan New York area, drivers feel that if the turn on their turn signals, they are entitled to cross over and enter another lane, despite the fact that other cars are already there and that they are creating a dangerous situation.

I have a slightly different attitude, let them spend the six hours on the range/lesson tee learning how to play golf, before they ruin it for all those who have sacrificed their time and efforts in learning how to play that game at a reasonable level.

[JakaB]

Patrick,

For the first time in weeks someone has acknowledged my deep compassion for the uncoordinated...thank you.   I would guess that anyone who could make a one putt par at the Open set up at BpB could play PhII in 270 minutes...I have not played BpB so I know very little of its projected/potential pace....but PhII is in a class of its own for enjoyable world class ball striking and mediocre roller balling...the director of golf should not scare anyone away just to pump up his gaggle of average co-horts.  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Patrick,
Although I agree with much of what you said I think it is an overstatement to blame it on a "right of entitlement". The resort took the fees, blame it on them if they don't set time parameters or marshal the course.

[Tim_Weiman]

JakaB:

You've asked an interesting question that touches on both golf architecture and the state of the game in America today.

As others have said, Pinehurst #2 can be played by a wide range of golfers, though scoring well does take a certain amount of skill.

As for the state of the game, I'm sympathetic to some of the points Pat Mucci made: there may well be golf courses unsuited for a certain class of golfers - those who either lack skill or simply don't know how to move on a golf course. The advertising you referred to does bring to mind the warning at Bethpage Black and I can agree BB may be even more unsuited for the kind of golfers I cited above than Pinehursr #2.

Pat Mucci:

I'm with you on the sense of entitlement problem. Sometimes it can take on an innocent but still frustrating tone. About 8-9 years ago I checked in at Blackwolf Run for a round at the River Course. I was fixed up with two other people who, it turns out, were playing golf for only the second time in their life. A bit stunned I asked them why they decided to play this course and they told me "they heard it was a good course". Were it not for a lovely young woman and very good golfer who also joined our group it would have been a very painful round of golf.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Entitlement is the state or condition of being entitled. When entitled, you have been furnished with the proper grounds for seeking or claiming something. The green fee is the entitlement and it applies equally to anyone who pays it.  
The idea that new players should have less access to courses that are over their abilities is stunning in and of itself.

[rgkeller]

Golf is one of the few sports that would be better off if fewer people took it up.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy,

That's why the resort and each golfer should be responsible to the other golfers on the course, who have paid their fee to play a round in a timely fashion.  They too are entitled to a round of reasonable length, not a death march.

Each should understand that a minimum standard should apply, however, once it becomes: all about the money,
the resort is saying that they don't care about the conduct of the golfers on their course, or the quality of the product they provide.

Do the same standards exist on a private golf course, or, are players who take 6 hours dealt with accordingly.