We've launched the new forums! Read more here

The "Natural" transformation of Pinehurst and the future of golf courses

SuperStroke
From an aesthetic perspective, and acknowledging how much they're saving in terms of resources, I think it's amazing. They really took an already amazing track and really made it US Open worthy.

That being said, I'm not sure how I feel about it being used for a major in this composition. This year Kaymer ran away with it and as a result it didn't come down to a sort of random patch of wiregrass that determined a winner and loser. But I think it would be a different animal if the final group is tied going into the final hole, both players miss the fairway, one guy gets stuck in a patch of grass and the other guy gets a clean lie. Feels very capricious. I know that's golf and if there were rough one person could just as easily get a propped up lie and the other sitting down, but that just doesn't seem as random as the "native areas" were this week.
 
The flip side is the hypothetical guy who got the bad break could avoid the hardship by hitting the fairway.

I heard Crenshaw talk about how the approach opens up the fairways and gives players strategic options that didn't exist before (and honestly it gives players at my level a better chance of hitting the fairway somewhere). All the rough kind of makes the game more boring for the player...hit the small fairway or hack it out.
 
Merion had long rough where anything that left the fairway was entirely dependent on luck to get a good lie too.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk.
 
So, with all the money they're saving by using less water has any of the saving been passed on to golfers?
 
adwillingham said:
I think it looks really good, at Pinehurst. Not sure how it would look and play where the natural soil underneath wasn't sandy like it is there.
Click to expand...
I agree donne, I like it there but in missouri clay that turns into a rock when dry I am not sure about here

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
 
I like the fact it is more environmentally friend and sustainable. Also, cheaper, easier to maintain is going to be important for the sport going forward as fewer people are playing and many courses (at least in my area) are struggling.

But I think it just looks cool too. I like it because it shows the nature of the surrounding land. I get tired of constantly playing park style golf courses. In south Florida we have a near monsoon climate so I understand the big, green courses, it's what works here. But when I go elsewhere I want to see the natural landscape and surroundings, not another local trying to replicate the climate of South Florida.
 
I like the look of the restoration i think in CA with the lack of water we may see a few course do this Poppy Hill did a remodel and eliminated most of there rough and add lots of waste area and pine straw instead of rough
 
tgtt said:
So, with all the money they're saving by using less water has any of the saving been passed on to golfers?
Click to expand...
I sincerely doubt it, and to think otherwise would be a bit naive methinks. With the amount I'm paying for a round of golf these days i'd be pretty PO'd if the course wasn't watered.
 
I was not a fan of this "return to natural" until I played in Scotland. If done right, matches the terrain and local flora etc., it won't seem gimmicky and helps your consider your shots. The downside is, often times random breaks go for worse on these courses. Oh how I know.
 
The changes are very nice. I enjoyed watching the US Open and seeing the course. It's a storied facility with tons of history.

As for a savings to the consumer, no. It's just one of those golf destination most average golfers won't play. It's like anything in life. You have low, mid and high. You can choose to pay the high fee and enjoy it. Or you can choose to not pay the fee. I'm glad not everyone can play it, it keeps
It's mystic.
 
I really enjoyed the looks of the course. Coore/Crenshaw were given a task to restore the course to it's original Donald Ross splendor, the days when golf course design was in it's infancy compared to today and when you see the pics comparing the two, they did a great job. They gave the golfer many options and risk reward really comes in to play on most holes, play smart and get a good lie, take the risk you get the gamble lie. The natural earth tones surrounded by sand and trees is really impressive looking and I thought aesthetically it was just as pleasing to my eye as a lush course like say Grand Cypress, it was just a different design style. Hopefully more designers will take on this direction and simplify design a little with conservation in mind.
 
Paladin said:
From an aesthetic perspective, and acknowledging how much they're saving in terms of resources, I think it's amazing. They really took an already amazing track and really made it US Open worthy.

That being said, I'm not sure how I feel about it being used for a major in this composition. This year Kaymer ran away with it and as a result it didn't come down to a sort of random patch of wiregrass that determined a winner and loser. But I think it would be a different animal if the final group is tied going into the final hole, both players miss the fairway, one guy gets stuck in a patch of grass and the other guy gets a clean lie. Feels very capricious. I know that's golf and if there were rough one person could just as easily get a propped up lie and the other sitting down, but that just doesn't seem as random as the "native areas" were this week.
Click to expand...

On the final hole, Kaymer had to lay up because he missed the fairway and wound up behind a clump of grass. Rickie hit a great shot down the right side of the fairway. Kaymer punched out and had to hit his third shot before Rickie even hit his second. They both wound up with par.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Love love love it.
 
tgtt said:
So, with all the money they're saving by using less water has any of the saving been passed on to golfers?
Click to expand...

No. As stated earlier, it's simple economics, supply and demand. As long as demand is high, they will continue charging the same price (or more as long as there is a public willing to pay). The only difference, they've now increased their profit margins by reducing their costs. Once demand decreases, they can consider lowering rates, but it's Pinehurst. I don't see demand dropping anytime soon.
 
Golf Ghost said:
Supply and demand will determine the costs of green fees. Nothing to do with maintenance costs, etc.

I wish you were right though.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I run a course that is about 45 minutes from Pinehurst and if what I am hearing from some of the Pros in the area is true then the Greens Fees for #2 are going up a pretty good amount after the Opens are both finished.
 
AG47 said:
I run a course that is about 45 minutes from Pinehurst and if what I am hearing from some of the Pros in the area is true then the Greens Fees for #2 are going up a pretty good amount after the Opens are both finished.
Click to expand...

Jeeze. It's already over $400. Soon will be higher than Pebble.


Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 
I can't wait for my course to use half the water and then charge me more. Talk about a kick in the nards haha.

In all seriousness I really like the look of the course and I think I would enjoy playing it in either form.
 
AG47 said:
I run a course that is about 45 minutes from Pinehurst and if what I am hearing from some of the Pros in the area is true then the Greens Fees for #2 are going up a pretty good amount after the Opens are both finished.
Click to expand...

#2 is actually going to be closed to the public until September . After that the rates will remain the same that they were in peak season before the opens. I am sure there will be an increase next calendar year but most courses go up a bit year to year .

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk
 
Paladin said:
From an aesthetic perspective, and acknowledging how much they're saving in terms of resources, I think it's amazing. They really took an already amazing track and really made it US Open worthy.

That being said, I'm not sure how I feel about it being used for a major in this composition. This year Kaymer ran away with it and as a result it didn't come down to a sort of random patch of wiregrass that determined a winner and loser. But I think it would be a different animal if the final group is tied going into the final hole, both players miss the fairway, one guy gets stuck in a patch of grass and the other guy gets a clean lie. Feels very capricious. I know that's golf and if there were rough one person could just as easily get a propped up lie and the other sitting down, but that just doesn't seem as random as the "native areas" were this week.
Click to expand...

But to your second point there Steve, what is the difference between the ball landing next to a patch of wiregrass, or up against the lip of a bunker, or right between the roots of a tree, or lost in high fescue, or 100 other scenarios that can come up at any major venue. If you hit it off the fairway, you should be at the mercy of luck on what you are able to do. I'd say the field as a whole had more success out of the native areas than they would have out of 6 inch deep Bermuda.
 
Trout Bum said:
I really enjoyed the looks of the course. Coore/Crenshaw were given a task to restore the course to it's original Donald Ross splendor, the days when golf course design was in it's infancy compared to today and when you see the pics comparing the two, they did a great job. They gave the golfer many options and risk reward really comes in to play on most holes, play smart and get a good lie, take the risk you get the gamble lie. The natural earth tones surrounded by sand and trees is really impressive looking and I thought aesthetically it was just as pleasing to my eye as a lush course like say Grand Cypress, it was just a different design style. Hopefully more designers will take on this direction and simplify design a little with conservation in mind.
Click to expand...

The problem is, the course plays nothing like it did when Donald Ross was alive. Agronomy has changed a great deal. I am guessing the greens at Pinehurst No. 2 ran at 7 or 8 max when Ross was alive. You could get away with shots back then that you simply can't now. That's great for a US Open, though.
 
My only comment on the greens is that I seem to remember them playing almost identically in 1999 and 2005 as far as shots hitting the greens and rolling down to collection areas. At the time, I seem to remember folks saying that the greens were the only line of defense the course had against the modern game. Given the scores on a hard, dry golf course, I would say there is some truth to that still.
 
Erky said:
The problem is, the course plays nothing like it did when Donald Ross was alive. Agronomy has changed a great deal. I am guessing the greens at Pinehurst No. 2 ran at 7 or 8 max when Ross was alive. You could get away with shots back then that you simply can't now. That's great for a US Open, though.
Click to expand...


I think a rebuilding of the greens is in order and they may do that but aesthetically I thought they did a great job getting it close to it's original state of grandeur. Playability is an entirely different topic for me.
 
As long as it doesn't introduce Hard Pans, it's fine.
 
I loved the wild grass areas and think those areas were a great test for golfers I just hated the dead areas and dirt at the edge of all the fairways. Hitting the ball off of dirt just doesn't appeal to me.
 
Maybe I'm wrong but I could see those natural areas absolutely wreaking havoc on a shiny new set of forged irons.
Although I suppose if I'm paying the green fee there I can afford a new set of sticks haha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top