Why the $&!?# doesn't anyone talk about Pinehurst #3???

[PCCraig]

When I was staying down in Pinehurst, I kept driving by the Cradle but when I looked across the street I noticed a couple really interesting holes namely the 16th hole on Course #3.


I wasn't planning on playing it, but it looked interesting enough to check out for a twilight round.


Holy cow...I loved it!


It's not remotely long by today's standards at 5,100 yards from the back tees, however it packs a ton of interest mainly due to an absolutely wonderful set of greens.


The course opens with a flat, 283 yard, par 4. Yet at the end is a small, turtle back green with a big false front front and left. Talk about a fun little pitch shot.


It then moves to the really pleasant 113 yard 2nd, slightly downhill and partially blind. Very cool.


The third hole is fantastic, especially for a nearly 90* dogleg right par-4 with a blind tee shot over a big waste bunker and a big turtleback green with a massive fall off behind the green.


After an attractive par-3 over a pond, you come to a terrific short par-4 at the 5th with another blind tee shot that plays into a big wide field consisting of all short grass. The 5th green is another full of shape and contour and very interesting even when approaching with a short wedge.


The 7th is a spectacular dogleg left with a unreal benched green with a big gnarly bunker on the left and a wild green. In the background is a beautiful short par-3 with a lake as a backdrop and a tiny green with a small point in the back making for an awesome do-or-die pin position.


You make the turn with another two par-4's with really fun greens followed by the really neat par-5 11th (the first of the day!) where you hug the waste bunker on the right to get the best angle to attack a tiny undulating back green in two.


Showing some variety after a couple 100 yard and a 150 yard par 3s, you come to the 200-yard and uphill 12th which is intimidating due to the cross bunker short off the tee and a green that slopes hard back to front.


The 13th is another fun par-5...at 423 yards 


The course ends with 4 par-4's which range from the pitch and putt 15th to the 380 yard 18th. The uphill 16th is beautiful moving up toward a green with the old railcars behind the green on the left.


The course also features old-school short pins (about 4ft tall) with little pennant flags, each with a big 3. Sounds like the Sugarloaf guys "rebranded" the course when they were working on #4 and I think they did a really nice job. Frankly the resort should hire them to do the remaining courses.   


Sure, the course works its way around and through some fairly heavy residential areas. However, the course is a blast and the greens are terrific. It's "short" at 5100 yards but there is really only one par-5 and with the size and severity of the greens it hardly feels like a pitch and putt. Most importantly it is very, very fun.


I wouldn't miss it on your next trip to Pinehurst. To me its a pretty clear Top 3 at the resort with #2 and #4. It would be a perfect addition to a 36-hole day.


It would really be something if the Resort did a similar amount of work on their #1 course, which sits on some really nice land (and less houses!) in the near future.


A few photos from the Pinehurst Resort website:

[Paul Rudovsky]

Only played it 1 time in mid 70's (when I knew absolutely zippo about architecture) and remember none of it.  Played #1 two years ago for 2nd time and decided if Resort put some $$ in it, it would be a fabulous addition

[Tim_Weiman]

Only played it 1 time in mid 70's (when I knew absolutely zippo about architecture) and remember none of it.  Played #1 two years ago for 2nd time and decided if Resort put some $$ in it, it would be a fabulous addition

Paul,


Like you I played it back in the 1970s. My recollection is that is was a pleasant course though probably not one I would make a special visit to see. However, we had friends from Pelham Manor who bought a house on the course and they loved just going out in the evening to play a few nearby holes.


Honestly, I see nothing wrong with Pinehurst having a course that is merely pleasant without any pretense of greatness.

[Jay Mickle]

#3 is a wonderfully fun course to play, with 8 excellent Ross greens, 6 Ellis Maples greens and 4 Kye Golby greens. Before a round on #2 it is an excellent test of short game skills and if you feel it is too short rent a set of hickories and have a blast.

[Chris Mavros]

Agreed on #3.  Went down to Pinehurst a couple months ago for the first time and was really taken with the course.  It's a little tougher to get a tee time since they hold tee times for members up to 24 hours, so you have to call and see what's available the day before so maybe that contributes to its lower profile.  I'm glad I remembered to call, as I was rewarded with the course to myself on a Monday morning.  The greens were a delight.  Playing them before taking on #4 and #2 was beneficial. 


A prime example that a short course can have all the intrigue, spirit and strategy of a longer one. 

[Ben Hollerbach]

Played no. 3 a few years before Gil Hanse's work. I was really surprised at the course and how good it was. I loved how the length really made the course a sleeper, but yet it didn't always play super short. It seemed very clear which holes were Ross and which holes were Maple, the Maple holes just felt different, and after playing it I longed for the possibility of reconnecting the original no. 3 routing.


I have not played the current version so I can't speak in great detail as to what Gil did, but from my outside perspective;



I don't quite understand why the current first hole plays as it does, the 17th seems to be a much more logical starting hole as it originally played as the 10th hole. I also very much liked the previous 5th hole, or what is now the first and second, and was a bit bummed that hole is no longer. I hope the previous green was retained for the 2nd, as that was a really neat green site.

[jeffwarne]

Agreed.
Played it in the 90's.
Aiken Golf Club a similar comparison to me.

[Tom_Doak]

How is it not considered the best course in the Sandhills?


Oh, we've already done that.

[Matt MacIver]

Every August our group does the following on Saturday: warm-up at The Cradle, 3-club match play on either #1 or #3 and then settle bets or make new ones on Putterboy.  Both #1 and #3 have some fun/sporty shots, all the more so with less than a full bag. 

[Bernie Bell]

What is prevailing opinion on whether the Cradle has been worth the sacrifices made to the other courses?  Does that differ between members and guests?

[PCCraig]

How is it not considered the best course in the Sandhills?


Oh, we've already done that.

 


Hey now...


I never said #3 was anywhere near the best golf course in the area, only that it is fun, interesting, and worth checking out if in the area.


The goal of this forum is still the frank commentary and discussion of golf course architecture, right?

[Peter Pallotta]

I only know Pinehurst from what I've read about it, but this thread is interesting in terms of how we've come to experience golf courses and what we've come to expect of them, ie

When Pinehurst was first developed, isn't it safe to say that the various courses there were each intended to serve a different function and to satisfy a different clientele/level of golfer?

The c 5100 yard long #3 course was aimed at one type of golfer looking to play & experience golf in one kind of way, while the #2 course was aimed at another type of golfer and kind of experience. No?

And those two courses would've always been 'judged' differently and held to different standards, ie no one would've been expecting anywhere near the same experience on #3 as on #2. Can you imagine Hogan playing #3 after he'd just won the 1940 North-South on #2? He would've thought it a pitch and putt, or the beginner's course -- which compared to a championship test like #2 is exactly what it was.

In other words, a completely different experience -- on purpose, and 'by design' as it were.

So why, today, do we approach a course like #3 -- and in any way try to judge it and discuss it and compare it to other area courses and think about renovating it -- as if it were anything more or less than a pleasant beginner's course, and for better players a glorified pitch & putt, and why would we want/expect it to provide a golf experience that was comparable or analogous to any other course in the region?

Why do we want to use the same 'metrics' for just about every course we play even though they were never intended to serve the same function?

Sometimes a beginner's course is just a beginner's course. What's wrong with that? It seems to me that we've come to believe that a 'good course' is good because (or only if) it satisfies everybody.

[Bernie Bell]

Not sure your premise is accurate, Peter.

https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/buie-chris-the-original-pinehurst-no-3/

[Tim_Weiman]

I only know Pinehurst from what I've read about it, but this thread is interesting in terms of how we've come to experience golf courses and what we've come to expect of them, ie

When Pinehurst was first developed, isn't it safe to say that the various courses there were each intended to serve a different function and to satisfy a different clientele/level of golfer?

The c 5100 yard long #3 course was aimed at one type of golfer looking to play & experience golf in one kind of way, while the #2 course was aimed at another type of golfer and kind of experience. No?

And those two courses would've always been 'judged' differently and held to different standards, ie no one would've been expecting anywhere near the same experience on #3 as on #2. Can you imagine Hogan playing #3 after he'd just won the 1940 North-South on #2? He would've thought it a pitch and putt, or the beginner's course -- which compared to a championship test like #2 is exactly what it was.

In other words, a completely different experience -- on purpose, and 'by design' as it were.

So why, today, do we approach a course like #3 -- and in any way try to judge it and discuss it and compare it to other area courses and think about renovating it -- as if it were anything more or less than a pleasant beginner's course, and for better players a glorified pitch & putt, and why would we want/expect it to provide a golf experience that was comparable or analogous to any other course in the region?

Why do we want to use the same 'metrics' for just about every course we play even though they were never intended to serve the same function?

Sometimes a beginner's course is just a beginner's course. What's wrong with that? It seems to me that we've come to believe that a 'good course' is good because (or only if) it satisfies everybody.

Peter,


I completely agree with you. The Cleveland Metropark has two high quality public courses built by famous architects: Manakiki (Donald Ross) and Sleepy Hollow (Stanley Thompson). Both are worth playing if you are in the area.


However, the Metropark also maintains two 9 hole beginners courses: Little Met and Mastick Woods. Neither has much, if anything, of architectural interest, but it is well worth hanging out on the 1st tee to get a look at what taking up the game is like for beginners. These courses are great the way they are. No reason to try to make them better.


One other point of reference: the first time I played Blackwolf Run, I was fixed up with two people who had never played golf before. What a nightmare!


When I asked them why they decided to play Blackwolf Run, they said they heard it was a good course. OMG. I lasted one hole with them before going on by myself.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I've only played #3 a couple of times and those plays were over ten years ago. I don't remember many individual holes but I do remember that I had a great time playing it. I didn't notice that it was very short. I may have to give it a go again.

[Jim Hoak]

I know that this thread is focused on #3, but I want to put in another recommendation for #1.  After playing #2 one morning, our group went after lunch and had a great time on #1.  Yes, it could stand some dollars to clean it up, but I found the course to be great fun and well worth the 4 hours on it.  Short, but challenging enough--especially after being beaten up by the magnificent #2.

[Chris Mavros]

I only know Pinehurst from what I've read about it, but this thread is interesting in terms of how we've come to experience golf courses and what we've come to expect of them, ie

When Pinehurst was first developed, isn't it safe to say that the various courses there were each intended to serve a different function and to satisfy a different clientele/level of golfer?

The c 5100 yard long #3 course was aimed at one type of golfer looking to play & experience golf in one kind of way, while the #2 course was aimed at another type of golfer and kind of experience. No?

And those two courses would've always been 'judged' differently and held to different standards, ie no one would've been expecting anywhere near the same experience on #3 as on #2. Can you imagine Hogan playing #3 after he'd just won the 1940 North-South on #2? He would've thought it a pitch and putt, or the beginner's course -- which compared to a championship test like #2 is exactly what it was.

In other words, a completely different experience -- on purpose, and 'by design' as it were.

So why, today, do we approach a course like #3 -- and in any way try to judge it and discuss it and compare it to other area courses and think about renovating it -- as if it were anything more or less than a pleasant beginner's course, and for better players a glorified pitch & putt, and why would we want/expect it to provide a golf experience that was comparable or analogous to any other course in the region?

Why do we want to use the same 'metrics' for just about every course we play even though they were never intended to serve the same function?

Sometimes a beginner's course is just a beginner's course. What's wrong with that? It seems to me that we've come to believe that a 'good course' is good because (or only if) it satisfies everybody.

#3 was never meant to be a beginner's course or "pitch and putt" though.  It started as a longer nine hole, then expanded to 18 in 1910.  It became even more popular than 1 and 2, and was the first course Ross designed from the ground up in the area.  It became regarded as the finest course in the Sandhills for quite some time. 


The courses were not built for a level of clientele; they were built with the intention of becoming, then staying, the premier golf destination in the country.  It was a matter of expansion and meeting demand.

[Peter Pallotta]

Chris, Bernie
yes, but I think many courses back then were ostensibly designed -- and certainly promoted -- as the finest golf course and/or the premiere destination in the country. A course like #3 (along with the Pinehurst resort in general) would've primarily served as a winter getaway for wealthy Northerners. Can anyone meaningfully compare it to a course like, say, NGLA, which when it opened at about the same time (1910-1911) measured almost 6600 yards, and could host some of the finest amateurs in the world during the Walker Cup about a decade later? What I'm suggesting is that, regardless of what its owners/promoters might say about it, I don't think any serious/seriously good golfer back then would have thought of #3 -- or expected it to serve -- as any kind of  'championship test', nor would most have expected it to provide a golf experience analogous to (contemporary) courses like Oakmont or Merion. I could be wrong, and I don't think that's what Pat is doing with this thread; but I'm saying that discussing a course like #3 as if it needs to fit some broadly conventional notion of a "good golf course" in order for it to actually be a good course seems misguided, in a particularly modern way.

[Bernie Bell]

Noted and agreed.  Doesn't "good" beg the question, good for what? And for whom?  Partly the reason for my earlier question about the changes made to accommodate the Cradle.

[Steve Wilson]

I always liked the holes on #3 but some of the condo canyons were offputting.  My biggest disappointment though was always thinking I should have scored better than I did on such a short course.  Some of the green complexes put complex into that phrase.

[Matt MacIver]

Bernie - The Cradle is a 100% win from all accounts, from resort guests to first timers. Have no idea what members think.  There is clearly room for it along with #1 and #3, in their current and future states. It along with Putterboy were the missing pieces and necessary given what the other top flight resorts were/are doing along the lines of short game and putting facilities.

[Paul Carey]

"The goal of this forum is still the frank commentary and discussion of golf course architecture, right?"


I never miss a thread that discusses a non top 100 course that is accessible.  Thanks for the topic.

[Ben Hollerbach]

I always liked the holes on #3 but some of the condo canyons were offputting.  My biggest disappointment though was always thinking I should have scored better than I did on such a short course.  Some of the green complexes put complex into that phrase.

I totally share the sentiment of walking off the 18th green wondering why I didn't score 5 or 6 shots better. No. 3 epitomized the concept of playing the hole in reverse based upon where the pin is located on the green. often the best strategy is playing for the correct spot off of the tee rather than trying to hit it as far as you can. For many players leaving the driver in the car and using only fairway woods and irons off of the tee would be the best strategy.


I remember the condos that bordered the course, but I don't recall feeling that they in any way impeded the playing corridors or made the course feel cramped.

[Paul Carey]

How much of #3 was taken away when the Cradle was built?  Apparently Kye Goalby's work was to #3 and #5 to make room for the Cradle.  I recall the first hole was at the [size=78%]first tee of the Cradle.[/size]
[/size]

[Ben Hollerbach]

How much of #3 was taken away when the Cradle was built?  Apparently Kye Goalby's work was to #3 and #5 to make room for the Cradle.  I recall the first hole was at the [size=78%]first tee of the Cradle.[/size]

The Cradle takes up the land that was the first holes on no. 3 and no. 5. What was the 2nd on no. 3 was flipped and now plays at the first hole on no. 5, which actually returned it to how it was as the opening hole on the original no. 3.