News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Pinehurst #2: Architecturally a 10 but visually a ...
« on: June 16, 2024, 08:35:16 AM »
Quoting my own self (so that me does not sue me for libel) from a Thursday piece on Round One of the 2024 USGA men's open championship, I done writ

I’ve posted on social media that I’m not convinced that the viewing public is ready for three U.S. Open tournaments at Pinehurst #2, over a twelve-year span. I like the course and I love the sandhills, but the deuce is not a visually-stunning course. The topography, with the exception of holes four and five, is flattish. Flattish not in an Old Course way. Flattish in a where’s-the-movement way. I have erred in judgment, and it is possible that the television audiences will take to Donald Ross’ masterpiece in a manner that I did not anticipate.

While astray in south-central New York the last three days (Soaring Eagles, Indian Hill, Bonavista, ElmiraCC) the topic came up among our trio, and we reached no conclusion. Ergo, I present the question in the title to you, the maniacal ones, the unwashed architecture votaries:

Can a Doak 10 be visually unappealing? Or, to poorly paraphrase Orwell, are some 10s more 10 than others?

Coming in 2024
~Elmira Country Club
~Soaring Eagles
~Bonavista
~Indian Hills
~Maybe some more!!

Matt Kardash

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pinehurst #2: Architecturally a 10 but visually a ...
« Reply #1 on: June 16, 2024, 08:41:35 AM »
Not to hijack this thread, but I think it relates. I was thinking is there another Doak 10 (or even 9) that does not have a single hole that is considered great? What I am getting at it is that I don't think #2 has a single hole that stands out. It's like a collection of really good holes that all sort of blend together into a cohesive 18. Does that make sense?
the interviewer asked beck how he felt "being the bob dylan of the 90's" and beck quitely responded "i actually feel more like the bon jovi of the 60's"

Jim_Coleman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pinehurst #2: Architecturally a 10 but visually a ...
« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2024, 02:04:14 PM »
   I think it’s more impressive in person than on tv, like a lot of links or heathland courses.

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pinehurst #2: Architecturally a 10 but visually a ...
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2024, 02:22:50 PM »
Matt, absolutely germane to the thread's intent. I think that standout holes have a visual quality to them. I think that surrounding natural elements (hills and valleys, adjacent water, mountains, desert) frame golf holes very well. I believe that Pinehurst lacks all of that. Regarding standout holes, it reminds me of the notion of the sum of the parts being more important than the parts themselves. Is it the golf equivalent of sabremetrics and Billy Beane?

Jim, what do you find impressive in person? I love elaboration from the source, and I don't want anyone telling me what they think Jim thinks.
Coming in 2024
~Elmira Country Club
~Soaring Eagles
~Bonavista
~Indian Hills
~Maybe some more!!

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pinehurst #2: Architecturally a 10 but visually a ...
« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2024, 02:38:28 PM »
I have played #2 twice after the restoration. There is more land movement than it appears on TV. When you combine that with the waste areas, pine trees, and blue sky (If G-d isn’t a Tar Heel, why did He make the sky Carolina Blue?), it is visually impressive course.


As for great holes, that adjective can mean a lot of things, but 4, 6, and 11 are among the best I have played anywhere and 3 is surely a great short Par 4.


My top five favorites: Lahinch, CPC, North Berwick, PH2, and Somerset Hills. PH2 is that good.


Ira

Jim_Coleman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pinehurst #2: Architecturally a 10 but visually a ...
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2024, 03:03:17 PM »
   It’s been a long time, but I remember thinking the sand/bunkering to be visually intimidating and impressive. Sort of like the first time I played Bethpage Black, especially the Black’s flattish holes 7-13.

Carl Johnson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pinehurst #2: Architecturally a 10 but visually a ...
« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2024, 03:24:11 PM »
Visually appealing?  Unfortunately I cannot comment on what I see on TV this year because my cable company has lost, to me, the NBC affiliate I'd be watching it on.  However, I expect that it would depend on the camera positions and angles and what the telecaster wants to show, which is first likely to be the competition.  I've seen some highlights on the golf channel or somewhere, and the waste areas can be attractive if shown properly.

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pinehurst #2: Architecturally a 10 but visually a ...
« Reply #7 on: June 16, 2024, 07:27:17 PM »
Would it help if I used the words redundant/repetitive? There is a redundancy and a repetition that other 10s perhaps don't suffer.
Coming in 2024
~Elmira Country Club
~Soaring Eagles
~Bonavista
~Indian Hills
~Maybe some more!!

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pinehurst #2: Architecturally a 10 but visually a ...
« Reply #8 on: June 17, 2024, 12:40:32 AM »
If you can't see the beauty in a walk around Pinehurst #2 generally -- and on holes such as 3, 4, 5, 9, 13, 16 specifically -- you might find you actually don't really care for great golf.

If you can't look at the 1st, 8th or 12th green from the fairway and see a thing of absolute beauty, golf may not be the game for you.

If you miss on the 5th hole short left as I did, survey the scene in front of you and not have your breath taken away, I genuinely don't know how to help you.

Chris Hughes

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pinehurst #2: Architecturally a 10 but visually a ...
« Reply #9 on: June 17, 2024, 01:36:47 AM »


If you miss on the 5th hole short left as I did, survey the scene in front of you and not have your breath taken away, I genuinely don't know how to help you.


Today Rory hit the green on #5...

...what a bogus screwjob the hole foisted onto him there, awful.

(FTR, I was pulling for B.D.)
« Last Edit: June 17, 2024, 01:28:44 PM by Chris Hughes »

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pinehurst #2: Architecturally a 10 but visually a ...
« Reply #10 on: June 17, 2024, 03:45:16 AM »
If you can't see the beauty in a walk around Pinehurst #2 generally -- and on holes such as 3, 4, 5, 9, 13, 16 specifically -- you might find you actually don't really care for great golf.

If you can't look at the 1st, 8th or 12th green from the fairway and see a thing of absolute beauty, golf may not be the game for you.

If you miss on the 5th hole short left as I did, survey the scene in front of you and not have your breath taken away, I genuinely don't know how to help you.

I figure folks that don’t see greatness and beauty in Pinehurst are defining the terms differently from me. That’s ok, no skin off my nose.

Ciao
« Last Edit: June 18, 2024, 07:31:34 PM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Fraserburgh, Ashridge, Kennemer, de Pan, Eindhoven, Hilversumche, Royal Ostend, Alnmouth & Cruden Bay St Olaf

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pinehurst #2: Architecturally a 10 but visually a ...
« Reply #11 on: June 17, 2024, 05:21:23 AM »
I can see what makes it a visual 10. Wouldn’t mind someone explaining what makes it an architectural 10.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pinehurst #2: Architecturally a 10 but visually a ...
« Reply #12 on: June 17, 2024, 06:25:20 AM »
I can see what makes it a visual 10. Wouldn’t mind someone explaining what makes it an architectural 10.

Ask Doak, it’s his score. When he wrote it at the time I was in strong disagreement. After seeing the reno I thought how could the old version be a 10 when this version is clearly miles better?

Ciao
« Last Edit: June 18, 2024, 07:32:07 PM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Fraserburgh, Ashridge, Kennemer, de Pan, Eindhoven, Hilversumche, Royal Ostend, Alnmouth & Cruden Bay St Olaf

Brett Meyer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pinehurst #2: Architecturally a 10 but visually a ...
« Reply #13 on: June 17, 2024, 06:49:00 AM »
I don't know about visually a 10, but no. 2 is probably one of the only courses in the country where everything off the fairway, greens, and bunkers is close to what it would look like if there were no golf course there. Even on a heathland course in England, without regular fire, the heather would turn into birch and then eventually pine and oak forest. But if you go walking around a well-managed (by fire) longleaf pine forest in the southeast--which used to cover 90% of the land--the ground looks very similar to the rough at Pinehurst. As someone who likes to see natural landscapes, I greatly appreciate that, regardless of its value for golf.

There is one unnatural thing about it though--longleaf pines would be sprouting everywhere and would eventually take over. I didn't see too many on TV, so they must have removed them. When I played there a few years back, they were everywhere. But still, once grown up, the ground would look similar to how it looks now.

Architecturally, I thought Pinehurst was a 10 before the renovation and I still think it's a 10. It seemed to me as fundamentally the same course and that's because it's made entirely by the greens, which weren't changed. But visually a 10 or not, I think most would agree that it looks much better now.

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pinehurst #2: Architecturally a 10 but visually a ...
« Reply #14 on: June 17, 2024, 07:02:40 AM »
What makes the greens a 10? Genuine question.


Visually they looked really cool, even on TV. But it did appear that there was only one spot you could hit towards on each green, regardless of pin position.


Anyway, it was the first time I had really focused on the course and it looked like my kind of place. Very reminiscent of The Loop.

Brett Meyer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pinehurst #2: Architecturally a 10 but visually a ...
« Reply #15 on: June 17, 2024, 07:52:54 AM »
What makes the greens a 10? Genuine question.


Visually they looked really cool, even on TV. But it did appear that there was only one spot you could hit towards on each green, regardless of pin position.


Anyway, it was the first time I had really focused on the course and it looked like my kind of place. Very reminiscent of The Loop.

Ally, I'm glad you brought up the Loop because it's the closest comparison to no.2 of any course I've seen, both in look and how it plays. And comparing them helps illustrate why I like no.2 so much. There's a bit more variety in the green complexes at the Loop, but a lot of them are similar to no.2, surrounded by slopes that take the ball away from the green.

The reason I prefer no.2 to the Loop is because no.2 gets the balance right in the runoffs around the greens while on the Loop, like many other new courses that have a lot of runoffs, they're too often too severe. The no.2 greens have some crazy areas, like left of 5, over/left on 8, and over 14. But only a small percentage of the surrounds are that severe. Most of the areas around the greens if you miss, the ball runs 2 feet downhill and 10-15 feet away from the green because the slopes are neither steep nor long. That's a tricky shot, but it's not impossible. The ball might come back to your feet, but only if you hit a terrible shot. And it should never go off the other side.

So I don't think it's true that there's only one place around most of the greens that you can miss. It's more often the case that there's only one place where you can't miss. Usually on no.2 you'll be safe if you play anywhere toward the front of the green. Sometimes, like the 2nd hole, you have to favor the front and one side (here, the left). But others it can be the front and an entire side (short or right on 1, short or left on 15). On 5, as we saw yesterday, short-left is bad, but short-right is good and so is the rest of the right side.

My issue with the Loop is that the runoffs around a lot of the greens are too steep and often too high. Some get it right, like the 2 Black/16 Red green. But I think some are pushed up a bit too high, like 1 Black/17 Red, 6 Black/12 Red, and the back of the double plateau 16 Black/2 Red. There are safer places to miss around these greens, but I found them smaller and harder to get to than on no.2. And on some, even if you play to the safe area--like around the lower plateau on 16 Black/2 Red--if you're playing to the higher plateau, it's still easy to miss the green.

Again, many of the greens on the Loop aren't like this. But enough of them are that it holds the course back a bit for me. I just wish that sections of a few of these greens were 2 feet lower. Then it would be more like no.2.

But the Loop is one of the few courses besides no.2 where the rough is close to natural, so like I said in my last post, it gets points for this. The pine barrens of north central Michigan would get frequent fires, which would result in an open forest of Red Pine, Jack Pine, and occasional oaks, like you have on the Loop.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Pinehurst #2: Architecturally a 10 but visually a ...
« Reply #16 on: June 17, 2024, 09:20:34 AM »
I can see what makes it a visual 10. Wouldn’t mind someone explaining what makes it an architectural 10.

Ask Doak, its his score. When he wrote it at the time I was in strong disagreement. After seeing the reno I thought how could the old version be a 10 when this version is clearly miles better?



I got to know the course in the 1970s and 1980s, before they started hosting the U.S. Open and ruined the course with "traditional" U.S. Open setups.  I rated it as I'd first seen it.  It's back to that now.


I know some people think that there is too much emphasis on the difficulty of the greens in scoring.  [Funny though, few people dare to say the same about Augusta National or Pine Valley.]  Pinehurst does maintain the greens too fast now during everyday play; when they were 9 or 10 on the Stimpmeter as well as the Doak scale, it was a lot more fun for resort guests.  But I don't mind them turning the dial to 11 for a major, and it seemed to produce compelling golf.




AChao

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pinehurst #2: Architecturally a 10 but visually a ...
« Reply #17 on: June 17, 2024, 12:49:49 PM »
Pretty sure they were 13.5 this week. 


I agree that 10 would be a good speed for resort/normal play.

Wayne_Kozun

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pinehurst #2: Architecturally a 10 but visually a ...
« Reply #18 on: June 17, 2024, 01:00:22 PM »
Visually appealing?  Unfortunately I cannot comment on what I see on TV this year because my cable company has lost, to me, the NBC affiliate I'd be watching it on. 
You don't need cable to watch NBC, you just need an antenna, at least for most of the US and Canada.

Jason Thurman

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Pinehurst #2: Architecturally a 10 but visually a ...
« Reply #19 on: June 17, 2024, 02:13:45 PM »
Not to hijack this thread, but I think it relates. I was thinking is there another Doak 10 (or even 9) that does not have a single hole that is considered great? What I am getting at it is that I don't think #2 has a single hole that stands out. It's like a collection of really good holes that all sort of blend together into a cohesive 18. Does that make sense?


It makes sense, as long as you don't consider 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, or 17 to be "great."


Dozens of trunk-slammers every day walk off The Old Course and say "I don't get what the fuss is about - the holes all look the same and it's full of Mickey Mouse bounces." No. 2 seems to be on its way to becoming America's Old Course: a frequent host of our national open, playable and accessible for any golfer willing to fork over a mortgage payment, but best appreciated by those who take the time to get to know her intricacies. In the case of both courses, one of my first thoughts is sadness at the idea that I won't be one of the lucky few who's able to play them over and over again.
"There will always be haters. That’s just the way it is. Hating dudes marry hating women and have hating ass kids." - Evan Turner

Some of y'all have never been called out in bold green font and it really shows.

Matt Kardash

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pinehurst #2: Architecturally a 10 but visually a ...
« Reply #20 on: June 17, 2024, 02:28:11 PM »
Not to hijack this thread, but I think it relates. I was thinking is there another Doak 10 (or even 9) that does not have a single hole that is considered great? What I am getting at it is that I don't think #2 has a single hole that stands out. It's like a collection of really good holes that all sort of blend together into a cohesive 18. Does that make sense?


It makes sense, as long as you don't consider 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, or 17 to be "great."


Dozens of trunk-slammers every day walk off The Old Course and say "I don't get what the fuss is about - the holes all look the same and it's full of Mickey Mouse bounces." No. 2 seems to be on its way to becoming America's Old Course: a frequent host of our national open, playable and accessible for any golfer willing to fork over a mortgage payment, but best appreciated by those who take the time to get to know her intricacies. In the case of both courses, one of my first thoughts is sadness at the idea that I won't be one of the lucky few who's able to play them over and over again.
Maybe "great" was the wrong word. How about "iconic"?I conceded the course is a 9 or 10, so I am saying the course is great. No issue from me. But there is no way I will ever admit that the course has a standout hole. Like Riviera #10 for example. As someone previously stated, I think #2 is more about the sum of its parts than any other top course I can think of.
the interviewer asked beck how he felt "being the bob dylan of the 90's" and beck quitely responded "i actually feel more like the bon jovi of the 60's"

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pinehurst #2: Architecturally a 10 but visually a ...
« Reply #21 on: June 17, 2024, 02:42:56 PM »
So Riviera #10 looks more iconic to you than the 13th at #2?


I don’t get that. I don’t get anyone who doesn’t see beauty in #2.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Jim Sherma

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pinehurst #2: Architecturally a 10 but visually a ...
« Reply #22 on: June 17, 2024, 02:53:33 PM »
I always feel torn with my thoughts on Pinehurst #2 and where is sits in the pantheon. I have not played #2 but have been in Pinehurst, find the land and turf in the area very nice for golf, and am familiar playing in the area. Of all of the very highly rated "great" courses out there #2 is the one that I have the least interest in spending the time, effort, and money it would take to play it. I think a lot of the allure of playing the great courses is having the chance to hit some of the great and compelling shots in the world. The tee shot on Pine Valley's 5th, the second on Pebble Beach's 8th, the second in to the Road Hole, trying to get the ball to stop on the front of Ballybunion's 6th, etc. Sometimes I've been successful and sometimes not. There was always the thrill of the attempt as well as the anticipation. I look at Pinehurst and see a bunch of tee shots with trouble on both sides, a bunch of approach shots to landing areas smaller than my dispersion pattern with no slopes to to play off of - either execute or roll off into a difficult uphill pitch, chip, bump, putt type of shot. Nothing about that tells me that I'm going to have a fun or interesting day out. I have no doubt that it's "great" in many ways. Maybe if I had the opportunity to play it 10-20 times and get to know it I would find nuances and strategies that would be compelling - in some ways I feel the same way about the Old Course but the history, familiarity and caddies help mitigate that a lot in my eyes.


I have no doubt that #2 is a difficult test that can be dialed up to very difficult for the big boys. I do have a lot of doubts that I will find it a great day out grinding over a bunch of very demanding short game shots from below the green. I guess at the end of the day I find macro challenges of full shots more compelling than a day of bleeding shots over the short game. 

Jason Thurman

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Pinehurst #2: Architecturally a 10 but visually a ...
« Reply #23 on: June 17, 2024, 03:00:10 PM »
Matt, why is 10 at Riviera a superior hole to 3 at No. 2?


Which hole at No. 2 do you consider to be closest to "iconic" stature, and why? What keeps that hole from reaching true "iconic" stature?


Alternatively, which hole at No. 2 is the least iconic, or just the least "good"?
"There will always be haters. That’s just the way it is. Hating dudes marry hating women and have hating ass kids." - Evan Turner

Some of y'all have never been called out in bold green font and it really shows.

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pinehurst #2: Architecturally a 10 but visually a ...
« Reply #24 on: June 17, 2024, 03:13:54 PM »
Jim,


I think one of the advantages of me not being a good golfer is that expectation of performance is not nearly as big a factor as enjoyment of the challenge. I think that if you played it, you would find several shots similar to the second at the Road Hole or the approach to Ballybunion 6. The greens at PH2 are more challenging than Ballyneal or TOC because so many of them do run off, but I found them as much fun to play as both (although not at 13 stimp). Finally, it really is a course where angles matter at least psychologically in terms of making confident swings.


It is extremely expensive, but I am glad that I ponied up even if I might do so again only in the off season.


Ira

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back