[Tom Fagerli]

Carl mentioned that he believes PN to be harder than MP. He may be the only person I have encountered of that opinion! I am fortunate to play both semi-regularly and find MP to be three strokes harder. However I prefer MP as it beats me up from 12 on in while I usually wait until 16 to collapse at PN.
On PN 15 avoid the fairway bunkers and you should have no issues if you don't go long.
PN 17 is a confounding hole. I made 3 there the day it reopened last year and another 3 soon thereafter. I have returned to my usual 5 scores sadly.  I believe the issue is that the second cannot be run onto the green as the fairway is too moist. This may be due to the trees.  If a hole is going to require a 200+ second you should be able to run it along the ground thru the narrow opening. Alas you cannot.
I love PNMP. The alterations are all improvements in my mind.

[Ira Fishman]

Sean,


I agree with your assessment of the relative merits of 14 versus 17 at PN.  I think 14 is one of the better holes because of the angles of all of the shots.  Regarding 17, I have played three Ross courses most frequently--MP, PN, and Hope Valley.  All have sharp doglegs left late in round.  MP 16 is a really good hole; Hope Valley 16 is borderline unfair unless you are a long hitter (not I) but the green site is quite interesting; PN 17 is pretty much as you describe.  Pretty impressive that Tom made two 3s.  I am curious is late in round sharp doglegs characteristic of Ross designs or whether my sample size is just "biased."


Sean, Carl, and Tom, as to the relative merits of MP and PN, I have played each around 7-8 times, and love them both.  I go back and forth in my mind continuously about which I prefer.  I do think MP is a bit more difficult because tighter.  At end of day, I tend to pick PN as the "better" course because of the quality of the green sitings and complexes.


One aspect of the combined resorts to which Sean alludes that my wife and I really enjoy is the old school, low key vibe.  That should not influence our views about the courses, but it sure does help keep us coming back. 


Ira

[BCowan]

Carl

There is no need to talk you out of anything.  Both PN and MP are class courses.  To me MP is slightly the better course, but I just might prefer PN.  Regardless, the gap between the two has been drastically reduced.  If forced to Doak them I would go MP 7 and PN 6 so I am in general conformity with the Conf Guide. 

I am perplexed, what is so awful about 15? 

Ben

Interesting, to me 14 is the far better version of the sharp dogleg.  I am never going to fall for a hole (17) which essentially requires a lay-up off the tee then puts a wood in your hand.  To me, this feels like the hole ran out of space.  Of course, technology is likely the real culprit.

Sweeney - cheers.

Ciao

Sean,

   MP is an 8 imo, as a buddy tells me how often he daydreams about the course.  The 14th at PN is a nice tee shot as the is the tee ball off 10 at PN, the 2nd shot is about as boring as they come on both holes.  17 is great for it entices the player to play aggressive for a shorter shot in, while rewarding the player who puts the ball in play and goes in with a longer iron or wood.  Tree removal is needed greatly around the green.     

[Sean_A]

Carl

There is no need to talk you out of anything.  Both PN and MP are class courses.  To me MP is slightly the better course, but I just might prefer PN.  Regardless, the gap between the two has been drastically reduced.  If forced to Doak them I would go MP 7 and PN 6 so I am in general conformity with the Conf Guide. 

I am perplexed, what is so awful about 15? 

Ben

Interesting, to me 14 is the far better version of the sharp dogleg.  I am never going to fall for a hole (17) which essentially requires a lay-up off the tee then puts a wood in your hand.  To me, this feels like the hole ran out of space.  Of course, technology is likely the real culprit.

Sweeney - cheers.

Ciao

Sean,

   MP is an 8 imo.  The 14th at PN is a nice tee shot as the is the tee ball off 10 at PN, the 2nd shot is about as boring as they come on both holes.  17 is great for it entices the player to play aggressive for a shorter shot in, while rewarding the player who puts the ball in play and goes in with a longer iron or wood.  Tree removal is needed greatly around the green.   

Hmmm, I really like the change of pace grade level green on 14....its a keeper for me.  I could buy aggression on 17, but the fairway slips toward trees and it isn't terribly wide.  To me this hole plays into the hands of the long ball and that is a design trait I have in recent years not been a fan of.  Grosse Ile has a similar hole (albeit the fairway is better shaped than PN's 17th) in #11 in that a layup is often required then a long second is required...I think the worst on the course.  Rogell too had a hole of the same requirement, but a worse example. 

To each is own, but I can't go for 8 with MP...to me it is not worth a special trip to play.  I prefer my personal scale because the wording is much clearer based around the time it takes to travel and play...so I give MP an R...worth a significant day trip, no more driving then it takes to play and have drinks (5ish hours of windshield time). A 1* would be worth an overnight detour.

Ciao

[BCowan]

Sean,

   Totally disagree, the long ball hitter will make doubles on 17 because many don't have restraint to hit hybrid off tee then long iron and take their par and head to 18.  Shorter hitters are less likely to hit it through the fairway.  The land for the 11th at Grosse Ile is much better but the hole and the course plays like a bog.  That is why everyone likes the 10th and 14th more then 17 at PN due to favoring change of elevation verse noticing strategic choices on flatter holes that are superior imo.  I don't think 17 is one of the better holes, nor do I agree with you the 1st is one of the better holes at PN.   

[David_Madison]

David

"From comparable tees of just under 6000 yards with my length of tee shot of ~225-250 with roll-out I would have to say #2 is the much tougher driving course over Pine Needles.  I suspect that what I experienced at #2 was something akin to what Open players had in 2014...#2 is filled with pinch points.  PN is more open off the tee...something I suspect C&C were looking for at #2...an added 10ish yards of width...which I think would make for a more interesting round of tempting play into the pinch points rather than not taking on the risk.  On the other hand, the waste areas often aren't that bad and do allow some opportunity for recovery.  Bottom line, #2 is a much more difficult course which shouldn't be surprising."

Sean - I agree that #2 is a more difficult driving course, especially from shorter yardages as you can easily run into the pinch points. My question was which of the two courses was the more interesting driving course, not the more difficult. I'd say PN, as you have more options with the driver to take on a variety of looks, angles, and challenges in hopes of positioning your tee shot to get to the cups, whereas #2 is more single dimensional - - lay up or take on the pinch point and play centerline golf. PN has lots of interesting drives with options everywhere. I just don't see that much at #2.

[Sean_A]

David


I disagree.  #2's pinch points can be had with precise driving (and there are recoveries available) and there are holes with no pinch points which do offer some choice...though I think an extra 10 yards of average width would accentuate these positives and increase the angle proposition into the greens.  PN doesn't pressure the drive anywhere near to the same degree, but again, that shouldn't be surprising.  For daily play, PN is more playable and still plenty interesting.  Where PN really has the advantage is with its greens being more receptive to kick in shots.  On many holes at #2 the kick in is a very difficult ask even if in good position.  Nothing has changed with my opinion, I think #2 would be a better course with more varied greens in terms of size and style.  However, if you take away the turtleback greens then #2 is no longer a championship course unless a complete redesign was undertaken for the greens rather trying to rebuild what Ross had in place in the mid-30s.  It ain't gonna happen.


Ciao

[David_Madison]

Sean - We agree that the fairways are too narrow past the pinch points, and yes, there are some holes without them. #2's pinch points can be accessed with pinpoint driving, but the fact is that the men at their Open for the most part didn't even try, as that left them with for them very manageable 7-8 irons in, while the women, who didn't want to keep leaving themselves with 170+ yard approaches, took them on. And so did you, from the tees you played, and I suspect so do 90%+ of the players who play the course because the vast majority of daily play comes from players who want to hit their drivers. What you then end up with is a seemingly very wide course that actually dictates center line golf.

PN's terrain is so much more interesting, and it's incorporation into the driving demands pretty ingeniously. We had that discussion when we played. From the back tees there are a number of holes where you bang it into upslopes, adding substantially to the playing length of the holes (examples include #6, #7, #11, #12). The driving requirements at PN are far more varied, and if ever they were to incorporate the cupping locations that Kyle has now created, accurate driving to certain spots on the fairways would be greatly beneficial. The width is generous and appropriate for the course's primary purpose as a resort, yet it can be turned into a competitive examination very quickly and easily just with cupping locations.

#2 is of course more difficult and the far greater big tournament course. But take away its history factored in to the player's evaluation, and PN has certain features that may make it a more interesting, varied, and enjoyable course for most players, especially with repeated play.

[Sean_A]

David

Yes, I think you are right that PN's tee shots are more varied because the terrain is hillier.  However, many of the drives do play over a hill and thus have a familiarity about them...so not as varied as one might hope or as many Colt designs I have played over similar terrain.  That is why a hole such as 14 is so welcome imo and partly why 17 is so disappointing.  This added variety doesn't necessarily mean they are better.  #2 is designed for championship play so it should be seen more in that light, given this, I think #2s tee shots are very interesting.  The pinchpoint holes are a minority as I would say nine are not of this sort.

I think it is remarkable that Ross created such an interesting design that rabbits can get around on land with such minimal elevation change, but then I like flattish land. That said, you could be right that on a daily play basis, PN may be more enjoyable...I will let you know when playing #2 and PN on a daily basis is part of my experience. 

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()