[Matt_Ward]

A number of people have commented on being mega disappointed after playing #2.

I can understand that because #2 is the one course where a single round can reveal little. Too much of what people wnat for golf design -- sensory overload -- is not present there.

C&C are now updating the course and likely will do well by all accounts -- we shall see.

Just have to wonder if the price were $100 would the feelings for #2 be different.

For people who bang #2 for being overrated -- they should have seen the collective destructive things from an earlier ownership group.

#2 is a course that requires at least several rounds to see the elements that are there.

Look forward to the comments -- pro, con or otherwise.

[Paul Jones]

I think same goes for The Old Course.  I have many friends that went to Scotland and did not get The Old Course, but loved Kingsbarn.

[hhuffines]

Put me in the small group of those thinking #2 is underrated.  Mr. Doak lists it as a 10 and Jack Nicklaus says its his favorite golf course from a design standpoint.  I hope we'll see a wonderful new write up here once the C&C work has been finished.

My only beef is that its too expensive and crowded.  I tried to get there tomorrow but its full, slam full.  We are enjoying incredible golfing weather this week...

[Travis Dewire]

What makes the course so appealing? Besides the history

It is very difficult and a complete masterpiece, the terrain offered nothing that leaves you in awe, no ups, downs, nature was lacking, but that is my humble opinion

[Tom_Doak]

I rated the course as a ten, but that was 15 years ago.  When last I saw it, I thought the fine details if the design had been smothered, and it is all about the fine details there, so I can see why people who have seen it in the past 5-10 years might have been disappointed.  I was very happy to hear that Bill Coore has become involved and I am confident he will get it back to where it ought to be.

[John Foley]

Huge fans of #2.

Love the meandering routing / the green complexes / whole feel of the place.

Gets bonus points in my book for lack of water & being very difficult to loose a ball on.

[PThomas]

its too subtle, except for the greens, for many people to appreciate

[Ed Oden]

While I like #2 a lot, I don't see it among the truly elite courses in the US.  Cost has nothing to do with it for me.  Rather, my biggest criticism is that, for the most part, I don't believe #2 is a particularly strategic course...at least not in its current form.  The difficulty and the interest is on and around the greens rather than from tee to green.  I hope that the C&C work will restore the strategy.  But I'm not necessarily convinced that will be the case.  The severity of the greens seems to reduce the margin for error on approach shots to the point where angles aren't all that important.  If the effective landing area to keep your approach shot on the green or get your ball close to the hole is 25' x 25', then I'm not sure it matters much whether you are coming in from the preferred line.  At the end of the day, it all comes down to how you handle the greens and recovery shots from off the greens.  

[JR Potts]

its too subtle, except for the greens, for many people to appreciate

This could be one of the biggest elitist know-it-all comments I've read on this site.  

Tell me wise one, what's so subtle about it?  What did your trained eye see that my eye, which is apparently incapable of recognizing subtlety, missed?  What I saw was a poorly conditioned pasture with some really cool greens and a nice routing...and that's it.  The mowing lines and conditioning were abysmal and the course looked and played like a muni....a 450 dollar muni.

I would have played Pine Needles and #4 over #2 all day.  

All the above being equal, I can't wait to go back after CandC are finished.  Maybe then I'll pick up on the subtlety.

[Jud_T]

Matt,

I've only played it twice and feel I'm only beginning to appreciate it.  Can't wait to go back after the renovation when it will likely regain it's deserved stature.   

[Dan Boerger]

I think Matt's right. It's easy to undervalue this course since there's not sensory overload, significant do-or-die shots or abrupt features. There is, however, (like 15 at Oakmont) a LOT going on there IMO.

[PThomas]

its too subtle, except for the greens, for many people to appreciate

This could be one of the biggest elitist know-it-all comments I've read on this site.  

Tell me wise one, what's so subtle about it?  What did your trained eye see that my eye, which is apparently incapable of recognizing subtlety, missed?  What I saw was a poorly conditioned pasture with some really cool greens and a nice routing...and that's it.  The mowing lines and conditioning were abysmal and the course looked and played like a muni....a 450 dollar muni.

I would have played Pine Needles and #4 over #2 all day.  

All the above being equal, I can't wait to go back after CandC are finished.  Maybe then I'll pick up on the subtlety.

Ryan, you need to lighten up

i am one of those who dont understand fully why, for Ex, Tom D gave it a 10...a lot of its subtleties are not fully apparent to me

[Tim Bert]

its too subtle, except for the greens, for many people to appreciate

When someone likes a course and there isn't much going on, they call it subtle.  When someone doesn't like a course and there isn't much going on, they call it boring!

I enjoyed Pinehurst #2 but I unfortunately played it after the fairway bunkers were actually rough bunkers and many of the recovery options had been eliminated.  I didn't really find it to be all that subtle.

[PCCraig]

It doesn't get any love because it requires multiple plays to understand the subtle design (for either a trained or untrained eye ), but at $400+ a play very few people can afford to play it more than once a trip...if at all. In a perfect world they would lower the price so that it would allow more people to see the course, but it gets so much play at the current price point I can't imagine them doing that anytime soon.

I do think what C&C is doing down there looks fantastic and I really can't wait to play the course once they're done with their work!

[John Kavanaugh]

I love Pinehurst #2 and would love to know what is subtle about putting into a bunker because you choose the hit your ball on the wrong section of the green.  What was subtle about John Daly getting the shakes and walking off the course.  The only thing the people who get the course have in common with those who don't is that they are blithering idiots for even trying.

[Chip Gaskins]

i still scratch my head about the greens and how they are "Donald Ross" greens, blah blah blah.  they are not Ross greens, they are Diamond Head (or whatever the developer was 20 years ago), Rees Jones, Jack Nicklaus, 50 years of top-dressing, etc etc greens.  

according to the research i have read by Richard Mandell, Dunlop White, Brad Klein, etc when Ross died in 1948 the greens looked very different than they do today...almost a foot lower across the entire green. they would have certainly not been called turtle backs.

unfortunately the greens will never be "restored" like C&C is doing with the rest of the course because to restore the greens means playing on temporary greens or closing the course and at $415 a pop that would be a non-starter for the Pinehurst Resort CFO.....sigh

[Ed Oden]

What exactly are the "subtleties" at #2 that are only revealed to a discerning eye through repeated play?  I have played there a number of times and never felt like the course was a mystery.  Is it incredibly challenging on and around the greens?  You bet.  Is the routing top notch?  I think so.  Again, I like the course.  But I don't see #2 as a puzzle that is only solved by a lifetime of careful study.  At least no more so than most other designs of substance.  For me, the "subtleties" argument is a bit of a red herring for the inability to explain why the course is a masterpiece.

[Tim Martin]

I love Pinehurst #2 and would love to know what is subtle about putting into a bunker because you choose the hit your ball on the wrong section of the green.  What was subtle about John Daly getting the shakes and walking off the course.  The only thing the people who get the course have in common with those who don't is that they are blithering idiots for even trying.

John- I think I get a sense of how you feel.

[Brad Tufts]

I have played the course twice, and had two very different thoughts when I finished.  The second time I enjoyed it much better because I hit the ball well enough to see some of the strategies and play to the greens from where the approaches were designed to be hit from.

First of all, the ambiance and history are off the charts.  Yes, this says little about the course that is on the ground today, but it all plays at least a small part in the look and feeling of the place.  The greens may not have been like that from the beginning, but I still see it as a cool classic look not found in many other places outside Scotland.

Secondly, the short game interest is off the charts.  #2 does have in common with links golf that being on the green isn't always the perfect place to be, and there are often several ways to make a par from on or off the green (putt, bang a chip into the hill, pitch, etc.).

It's tough to discount the greens at #2 and look for strategy down the fairways.  We all hope that C&C can restore a few angles, but what good are many strategic angles when the entire point at #2 is accurate iron play.  Take away the greens and you have nothing unique at it stands right now.  Add strategic angles to that and you have a flat course with strategic angles.  I don't think the C&C work will be spellbinding strategically.  The esthetics will be improved, and the unpredictability of an off-line shot to the wiregrass will be fixed.

People play (and pay for) #2 for a world-class test of iron and short game play.  Those that have trouble will always say "what's the big deal? its a flat course with impossible greens."  Those that can hit some of the shots (or can have a better attitude) will see it for what it is...one of the greatest short game courses in the country.

[Mark McKeever]

Brad Klien did a fantastic job illustrating how the greens arent the way Ross had originally intended for those who didn't attend Muccifest.  Hopefully he can chime in.

Mark

[John Kavanaugh]

I rated the course as a ten, but that was 15 years ago.  When last I saw it, I thought the fine details if the design had been smothered, and it is all about the fine details there, so I can see why people who have seen it in the past 5-10 years might have been disappointed.  I was very happy to hear that Bill Coore has become involved and I am confident he will get it back to where it ought to be.

The parrots have spoken.  Don't hate the parrot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrot

[Bruce Wellmon]

My 2 cents worth is "visual." No, I have not seen the C&C work. Yes, I have played it, maybe 5 times.
Prior, it just looked like you could tear it up and shoot low. There was nothing visually special about it at all, until you got to the greens.
No, I didn't go low, quite the opposite.

[jim_lewis]

In my experience #2 will beat me up 9 out of every 10 times I play it, but it is thrilling beyond words on that rare occasion that I have a good day there. It's like going fishing 9 times and catching nothing and then hooking the "big one" on the 10th try.

For me the subtlety starts with accepting the fact that you are going to miss a lot of greens. Even very good players do. Then the secret and strategy is figuring out where to miss and not miss a green. It took me many plays to master that on every hole.

There is also the matter of recognizing that certain parts of some grees break opposite from what they appear. For instance, any approach sohot to the right side of the 3rd and 12th greens will probably turn right off the green. I can't see that from the fairway. It takes a while to figure that any shot to the left side of the 5th green will break your heart by turning sharply left and finding the front left bunker. There is a bunker left of the 16th fairway. It seems that any second shot that looks like it will split the fairway winds up in that bunker which you can see from where most drives stop. I have made many pars from the left greenside bunker on #6, none from the right. You are better off in the left rough that the right side of the fairway on #7. Just a few examples of things I did not learn until after several plays.

Maybe I'm just slow to learn, but this knowledge definitely influences my "strategy" for playing most holes. Having said that, I look forward to the widening of the fairways.

[John Kavanaugh]

I will go so far to say that if you are one of those guys who don't count how many times you hit the ball you will miss the strategy of proper ball placement on the greens.  I still recall being excited about being only one over after 5 and hitting the green on the par three 6th.  I putted my next shot into the bunker leaving an emotional scar on my soul that the nongolfing critic will never understand.  If I hadn't done this on the 6th hole I am sure it would have come sometime later in the round.  It's as subtle as a bad marriage.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom Doak said it accurately -- when someone played the course does make a difference. I played the place before Diamondhead Corporation bought the place years ago and I could see how they badly handled the place. Club corp came in after that and did a fairly decent job -- no doubt the details of the place got lost in the sauce and that's why C&C are now on the job.

#2 takes a few rounds to see what's there -- the sensory elements are not visceral as with other courses like say Pebble Beach. You also don't have the mental grind overload you get with a penal place like Oakmont. #2 takes patience to play and understand -- something many Americans lack in spades.

One last thing -- guys who are hooked on the "clear visuals" need to adjust their thinking when playing #2 -- it's not THAT apparent.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()