This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.
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
How is it not considered the best course in the Sandhills?Oh, we've already done that.
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.
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.
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]