Top Courses that disappointed

[CDM]

1. Torrey Pines South- has a few nice ocean holes, but otherwise slightly above muni conditions. If I played it at the local rate I would be overjoyed, however, there is no way that course is worth 2 bills....

2. Erin Hills- I enjoyed this more than Torrey, but the prices (think it was 370 with caddy) was too much. Not too many memorable holes, but it was a very pleasant day of golf.

3. Wolf Creek- I actually like the tricked out course in and of itself. However, I have now played it 3 or 4 times, and it is damn close to a 6 hour round every time with the way it backs up....I will not play it again unless I can be the first or second off.

4. Pasatiempo- Luckily when I have played it, I have played it at greatly discounted prices. I would never pay 250 for it....

 

Just so you guys don't think I am just being cheap, I love the Bandon courses, Whistling Straits, King Barnes, Muirfield Old Course even though they cost a pretty penny...

 

Your just being cheap.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JK

[Roadking2003]

This is completely untrue.

 

The restoration brought the course back to the period in the late 30s just after the "browns" (original non grass greens) were redone and turned into actual greens. The greens were mostly kept faithful to Ross design over the years while the scrubby waste ares were turned into rough by a later owner. The restoration work was mostly noticeable in the fairways and bunkers which obviously changed dramatically but the greens were also completely rebuilt and in a couple instances the contours restored where they had changed. The whole course is original. You clearly don't know anything about the restoration or history of the place which is fine it would just be nice if you stopped talking like you do.

 

FWIW I'm not a huge fan of #2 or Donald Ross who I think built a ton of better than average courses with very few (none?) truly great courses. #2 is a very enjoyable round but there's many other places id rather play.

 

So, you think the greens were running around 12 in 1930? You clearly don't know anything about the history of greens.

[FairwayFred]

This is completely untrue.

 

The restoration brought the course back to the period in the late 30s just after the "browns" (original non grass greens) were redone and turned into actual greens. The greens were mostly kept faithful to Ross design over the years while the scrubby waste ares were turned into rough by a later owner. The restoration work was mostly noticeable in the fairways and bunkers which obviously changed dramatically but the greens were also completely rebuilt and in a couple instances the contours restored where they had changed. The whole course is original. You clearly don't know anything about the restoration or history of the place which is fine it would just be nice if you stopped talking like you do.

 

FWIW I'm not a huge fan of #2 or Donald Ross who I think built a ton of better than average courses with very few (none?) truly great courses. #2 is a very enjoyable round but there's many other places id rather play.

 

So, you think the greens were running around 12 in 1930? You clearly don't know anything about the history of greens.

 

So to you a "restoration" of a set of greens means slowing them down to original speeds? Really? That's something that's been done by literally nobody ever. And there's been plenty of green restorations. It's about restoring size, shape and contour. Yours is certainly and "interesting" and "original" take I'll give you that.

[Roadking2003]

That's a fair point and one I generally agree with however it's a completely whole different argument. That argument holds true for just about every old course with somewhat original green contours.

 

Also if you read what he wrote his complaint was that they didn't restore the greens which isn't true. I've never seen a green restoration that simply brought green speeds back to where they were in the 1920s or 30s.

 

They didn't restore the greens. If they did, the stimps would be around 6. Not 12.

 

Restoring something means you make it like the original. Otherwise, it's a partial restoration.

 

If I restore a 1911 Ford Model T but put a brand new 400 CU In V-8 engine in it, it's not a restoration. A restoration would have the original 177 Cu In four cylinder engine.

 

The course was designed to play at stimps of 6 or so. I seriously doubt that Ross would have designed the greens as he did if he knew they would be cut to 12.

[FairwayFred]

That's a fair point and one I generally agree with however it's a completely whole different argument. That argument holds true for just about every old course with somewhat original green contours.

 

Also if you read what he wrote his complaint was that they didn't restore the greens which isn't true. I've never seen a green restoration that simply brought green speeds back to where they were in the 1920s or 30s.

 

They didn't restore the greens. If they did, the stimps would be around 6. Not 12.

 

Restoring something means you make it like the original. Otherwise, it's a partial restoration.

 

If I restore a 1911 Ford Model T but put a brand new 400 CU In V-8 engine in it, it's not a restoration. A restoration would have the original 177 Cu In four cylinder engine.

 

The course was designed to play at stimps of 6 or so. I seriously doubt that Ross would have designed the greens as he did if he knew they would be cut to 12.

 

Quite simply put, no. In the golf course world that is not what a restoration means and id assume you know that. (maybe not?). It's about restoring the greens to their original size, shape and contour. Nobody actually slows their greens down to 1925 speeds when doing a restoration. If it were someone else I'd assume this was a tongue in cheek response but with you I never know.

 

By your definition they didn't restore the rest of the course either as there are tees that are longer than what was there in the late 30s. Would they also have to make the fairway grass shaggier and in less consistent condition than it is now for it to be a restoration in your eyes? That's how it was in the late 30s. Cuz grass height and green speed you can change day to day (that's maintenance of the golf course) but the contours of the green and course etc don't change (that's the golf course itself) when an architect does a "restoration" he is restoring the contours of the greens the placement of the bunkers the width of the fairway etc etc which is the static part of the golf course that doesn't change not the maintanance of the course which is left up to the staff from the course once the architect leaves. 2 totally different things.

[duffer987]

That's a fair point and one I generally agree with however it's a completely whole different argument. That argument holds true for just about every old course with somewhat original green contours.

 

Also if you read what he wrote his complaint was that they didn't restore the greens which isn't true. I've never seen a green restoration that simply brought green speeds back to where they were in the 1920s or 30s.

 

They didn't restore the greens. If they did, the stimps would be around 6. Not 12.

 

Restoring something means you make it like the original. Otherwise, it's a partial restoration.

 

If I restore a 1911 Ford Model T but put a brand new 400 CU In V-8 engine in it, it's not a restoration. A restoration would have the original 177 Cu In four cylinder engine.

 

The course was designed to play at stimps of 6 or so. I seriously doubt that Ross would have designed the greens as he did if he knew they would be cut to 12.

Oh c'mon, you're just being deliberately obtuse surely.

 

If someone restores an old farm house for that Model T to sit beside, are they going to rip out the toilet plumbing and dig a hole for an outhouse 50yds away?

Get rid of all the electricity and buy loads of candles and start chopping wood?

[FairwayFred]

That's a fair point and one I generally agree with however it's a completely whole different argument. That argument holds true for just about every old course with somewhat original green contours.

 

Also if you read what he wrote his complaint was that they didn't restore the greens which isn't true. I've never seen a green restoration that simply brought green speeds back to where they were in the 1920s or 30s.

 

They didn't restore the greens. If they did, the stimps would be around 6. Not 12.

 

Restoring something means you make it like the original. Otherwise, it's a partial restoration.

 

If I restore a 1911 Ford Model T but put a brand new 400 CU In V-8 engine in it, it's not a restoration. A restoration would have the original 177 Cu In four cylinder engine.

 

The course was designed to play at stimps of 6 or so. I seriously doubt that Ross would have designed the greens as he did if he knew they would be cut to 12.

Oh c'mon, you're just being deliberately obtuse surely.

 

If someone restores an old farm house for that Model T to sit beside, are they going to rip out the toilet plumbing and dig a hole for an outhouse 50yds away?

Get rid of all the electricity and buy loads of candles and start chopping wood?

 

Yes his has to be one of the most ridiculous arguments ever presented on this site.

 

Now if you want to argue modern green speeds have gone too far that's a completely and totally different argument.

[raynorfan1]

That's a fair point and one I generally agree with however it's a completely whole different argument. That argument holds true for just about every old course with somewhat original green contours.

 

Also if you read what he wrote his complaint was that they didn't restore the greens which isn't true. I've never seen a green restoration that simply brought green speeds back to where they were in the 1920s or 30s.

 

They didn't restore the greens. If they did, the stimps would be around 6. Not 12.

 

Restoring something means you make it like the original. Otherwise, it's a partial restoration.

 

If I restore a 1911 Ford Model T but put a brand new 400 CU In V-8 engine in it, it's not a restoration. A restoration would have the original 177 Cu In four cylinder engine.

 

The course was designed to play at stimps of 6 or so. I seriously doubt that Ross would have designed the greens as he did if he knew they would be cut to 12.

 

Quite simply put, no. In the golf course world that is not what a restoration means and id assume you know that. (maybe not?). It's about restoring the greens to their original size, shape and contour. Nobody actually slows their greens down to 1925 speeds when doing a restoration. If it were someone else I'd assume this was a tongue in cheek response but with you I never know.

 

By your definition they didn't restore the rest of the course either as there are tees that are longer than what was there in the late 30s.

 

I think the question here - and it’s one the treehouse gang has to wrestle with - is whether it’s possible to restore a golf course to meet the golden-age architects design intent WHILE caving on modern agronomy (particularly on the greens).

 

I would posit that the real purists would like to see greens rolled back to a 6 (or less). These are the guys who break out the hickory sticks at Musselburgh. But building golf courses for that constituency is not a viable business model, so nobody does it.

 

When you think about Ross’ design, it’s hard for me to believe that he created greens where you were required to fly the ball to a *particular* (and small) spot or be faced with a double bogey or worse. A lot of “restored” Ross greens require just this; leave the ball in the wrong place, and your first putt rolls off the green into an abyss.

 

If restorers were truly pursuing the design intent of the architects, they would be muting green contours to match the increase in speed (with some accommodation for improved trueness). But that’s not in style right now.

[FairwayFred]

That's a fair point and one I generally agree with however it's a completely whole different argument. That argument holds true for just about every old course with somewhat original green contours.

 

Also if you read what he wrote his complaint was that they didn't restore the greens which isn't true. I've never seen a green restoration that simply brought green speeds back to where they were in the 1920s or 30s.

 

They didn't restore the greens. If they did, the stimps would be around 6. Not 12.

 

Restoring something means you make it like the original. Otherwise, it's a partial restoration.

 

If I restore a 1911 Ford Model T but put a brand new 400 CU In V-8 engine in it, it's not a restoration. A restoration would have the original 177 Cu In four cylinder engine.

 

The course was designed to play at stimps of 6 or so. I seriously doubt that Ross would have designed the greens as he did if he knew they would be cut to 12.

 

Quite simply put, no. In the golf course world that is not what a restoration means and id assume you know that. (maybe not?). It's about restoring the greens to their original size, shape and contour. Nobody actually slows their greens down to 1925 speeds when doing a restoration. If it were someone else I'd assume this was a tongue in cheek response but with you I never know.

 

By your definition they didn't restore the rest of the course either as there are tees that are longer than what was there in the late 30s.

 

I think the question here - and it’s one the treehouse gang has to wrestle with - is whether it’s possible to restore a golf course to meet the golden-age architects design intent WHILE caving on modern agronomy (particularly on the greens).

 

I would posit that the real purists would like to see greens rolled back to a 6 (or less). These are the guys who break out the hickory sticks at Musselburgh. But building golf courses for that constituency is not a viable business model, so nobody does it.

 

When you think about Ross’ design, it’s hard for me to believe that he created greens where you were required to fly the ball to a *particular* (and small) spot or be faced with a double bogey or worse. A lot of “restored” Ross greens require just this; leave the ball in the wrong place, and your first putt rolls off the green into an abyss.

 

If restorers were truly pursuing the design intent of the architects, they would be muting green contours to match the increase in speed (with some accommodation for improved trueness). But that’s not in style right now.

 

I think there is a happy medium there I could see the argument that some greens should stay closer to 10 rather than 12+ as opposed to muting contours that have been on greens for close to 100 years. But that's up to the club once the architect leaves to maintain the course to what they believe is the proper level.

 

Like I said if you want to argue that modern green speeds have gone too far I think that's a valid discussion that we all could have but it's a different one than we were having.

 

Out of curiosity do you feel the same way about Raynor greens that you do about Ross greens?

 

Would you be OK with a water hazard in the "wrong place" instead of grass where you can find and play your ball but have a very low chance of actually getting up and down?

[raynorfan1]

I think there is a happy medium there I could see the argument that some greens should stay closer to 10 rather than 12+ as opposed to muting contours that have been on greens for close to 100 years.

 

I agree that there's a happy medium. There's a tradeoff between the fact that greens have gotten a lot more "true" (and thus easier) and that they've gotten faster with the same contouring (and thus harder). If you slowed things down to 1925 speeds, but kept the purity of a modern green, that wouldn't reflect the original design either. There's a balance. But *generally* I think restorations go overboard on getting the "contours" right, and the speed too fast.

 

But that's up to the club once the architect leaves to maintain the course to what they believe is the proper level.

 

That's a cop out. The architect should spec the greens for a certain speed and the course should execute on it, or it's not a "restoration" IMHO. Maintenance and conditioning practices are part of restoring a course. If a course isn't committed to a restoration, that's fine - call it a redesign.

 

Like I said if you want to argue that modern green speeds have gone too far I think that's a valid discussion that we all could have but it's a different one than we were having.

 

IDK, I think this is the crux of RoadKing's problem. You'd have to ask him, not me. But I understand the argument that Pinehurst's greens are mismatched with the rest of the 'restoration'.

 

Out of curiosity do you feel the same way about Raynor greens that you do about Ross greens?

 

One thousand times yes. But it's more difficult to have that conversation, because relatively few people have much experience on Raynor-designed courses compared to Ross-designed courses. I learned the game on a Raynor course that had changed very little once he walked off the property. The greens had lost a lot of square footage because of sloppy maintenance but the contours were largely there, irrigation mostly wasn't, and speeds were probably ~6. The course "improved" the agronomy of the greens over the past ~10 years, and now they roll beautifully at ~10, and putts that used to be super fun challenges are now flat out impossible.

 

Would you be OK with a water hazard in the "wrong place" instead of grass where you can find and play your ball but have a very low chance of actually getting up and down?

 

The nature of the hazard doesn't really matter to me. In a lot of ways, I prefer grass to water, because I think water over-simplifies the options that you have. You dunk it in water, you know where your choices to drop are and what the outcomes are. You stick yourself in some nasty fescue, and you've got some calculus to do about what you do next.

[FairwayFred]

I agree that there's a happy medium. There's a tradeoff between the fact that greens have gotten a lot more "true" (and thus easier) and that they've gotten faster with the same contouring (and thus harder). If you slowed things down to 1925 speeds, but kept the purity of a modern green, that wouldn't reflect the original design either. There's a balance. But *generally* I think restorations go overboard on getting the "contours" right, and the speed too fast.

 

But that's up to the club once the architect leaves to maintain the course to what they believe is the proper level.

 

That's a cop out. The architect should spec the greens for a certain speed and the course should execute on it, or it's not a "restoration" IMHO. Maintenance and conditioning practices are part of restoring a course. If a course isn't committed to a restoration, that's fine - call it a redesign.

 

Like I said if you want to argue that modern green speeds have gone too far I think that's a valid discussion that we all could have but it's a different one than we were having.

 

IDK, I think this is the crux of RoadKing's problem. You'd have to ask him, not me. But I understand the argument that Pinehurst's greens are mismatched with the rest of the 'restoration'.

 

Out of curiosity do you feel the same way about Raynor greens that you do about Ross greens?

 

One thousand times yes. But it's more difficult to have that conversation, because relatively few people have much experience on Raynor-designed courses compared to Ross-designed courses. I learned the game on a Raynor course that had changed very little once he walked off the property. The greens had lost a lot of square footage because of sloppy maintenance but the contours were largely there, irrigation mostly wasn't, and speeds were probably ~6. The course "improved" the agronomy of the greens over the past ~10 years, and now they roll beautifully at ~10, and putts that used to be super fun challenges are now flat out impossible.

 

Would you be OK with a water hazard in the "wrong place" instead of grass where you can find and play your ball but have a very low chance of actually getting up and down?

 

The nature of the hazard doesn't really matter to me. In a lot of ways, I prefer grass to water, because I think water over-simplifies the options that you have. You dunk it in water, you know where your choices to drop are and what the outcomes are. You stick yourself in some nasty fescue, and you've got some calculus to do about what you do next.

 

I kinda feel like this is turning into an argument over symantics. By what you and RK are saying virtually all work done on old courses is a "redesign" rather than a "restoration" and I'm OK with whatever you want to call it. I don't think anybody is trying to take their course back to 1925 playability and maintenance but rather to re-introduce the original fairway widths, bunker placement/strategy (we can also argue about fairway bunker placement and how it should be done now that everyone hits the ball further) green size and contour etc. I guess a faithful "restoration" would involve shaggy fairways that were firm and barely or not at all irrigated, bunkers that were never consistent and barely raked as well as bumpy greens rolling 6. I've never thought of it that way but I guess by the strict definition of the word restoration that's correct.

 

______________

 

Unfortunately that's just not how it works in the real world. Green committees make those decisions and they change every year. It's very easy for the architect to come in and suggest keeping greens at a 10, the greens committee is all on board for a minute until the membership starts to complain that the greens are slower than their neighbors and next years greens committee tells the super to make them faster. If he (or she) doesn't listen they are out of a job.

 

______________

 

See the first part of my response. Are we saying that a faithful "restoration" would include shaggy fairways that were generally firm and barely or not at all irrigated, bunkers that were never consistent and barely raked as well as bumpy greens rolling 6? I've never thought of it that way but I guess that's the literal definition of "restoration". That's just not what it means exactly in the golf course architecture business. I'm fine with changing the terminology if you want to champion that cause. If they slowed down the greens to 1930s as RK suggested wouldn't you then be playing on 2018 fairways, bunkers, tees etc but 1930s greens from a maintenance standpoint?

 

_______________

 

Mind sharing which one? Huge fan of Raynor have played almost all of his courses.

 

_______________

 

I always find that an interesting question when this debate comes up. I love trying to get up and down from death and I generally hate losing balls in water but certainly no wrong answer there. My only comment is I find in general you have to miss pretty bad around the green to find yourself in thick tall fescue. I was more thinking of short siding yourself terribly say for example missing the green right on the redan at Camargo club and leaving yourself an impossible chip over a bunker to a green that slopes hard away from you. Or missing the green on 17 at Shinnecock right to a right hole location.

 

___________

 

IMO the architecture is one thing and maintenance is a completely separate thing. One is static and one is variable day to day and season to season and as we have seen, year to year.

[BNGL]

Someone hit the nail right on the head, clubs/members hear that one club in the area is a running 12.5 and the race is on to have the fastest greens. Trouble is typically the members have no idea what a 12 is. They either don’t know, or exaggerate because it is somehow sexy to have the fastest greens in the area.

 

There’s two instances that stand out to me, first year playing in Canada. Played Dakota Dunes? And I was eating lunch at the club and a regular there struck up a conversation with me. We went back and forth about lots of things, then got to the conditioning course which was phenomenal. He made a comment about how fast the greens were, and I remember saying yes they’re pretty pure definitely a good holing speed. He asked me how fast I thought they were, being a regular tournament player I guessed about 10.5 certainly no faster than 11. He assured me they were at least 12.5. So me being the Dbag I am, I asked someone and got an answer. 10 feet seven inches. He was incredulous, and so sure the greens were faster than that. Point of the story, typically people don’t know what a 12 is.

 

This past winter I accidentally got my greens unputtable, I got 15 feet 1 inch for three days each morning. Got boned by a cold front that hit us a little harder than I thought (we are right in the ocean so I expected a little bit more temperate forecast) but the ground firmed up and the plant shut down. They were so pure, best surface I’d ever seen. But unless it was in the center of a 10 foot flat spot they were nearly unputtable. Point of that story, other clubs heard the speed I was getting and started to push hard as well, few clubs in the area got to 14 but not 15 lol. Damn stimp meter....most overrated thing in golf.

[raynorfan1]

I kinda feel like this is turning into an argument over symantics. By what you and RK are saying virtually all work done on old courses is a "redesign" rather than a "restoration" and I'm OK with whatever you want to call it. I don't think anybody is trying to take their course back to 1925 playability and maintenance but rather to re-introduce the original fairway widths, bunker placement/strategy (we can also argue about fairway bunker placement and how it should be done now that everyone hits the ball further) green size and contour etc. I guess a faithful "restoration" would involve shaggy fairways that were firm and barely or not at all irrigated, bunkers that were never consistent and barely raked as well as bumpy greens rolling 6. I've never thought of it that way but I guess by the strict definition of the word restoration that's correct.

 

It is partly a semantics issue, no doubt. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter; I generally like the "modern minimalist" style. But I find the GCA acolyte crowd to be intellectually dishonest in their deification of "golden age" designers and designs. I'm all for the work that clubs are doing on their fairways/rough/native areas, but to use the "design intent" of the architect as cover, and then set the greens to 10+ is ridiculous. I played an event last year before the Senior Open at Salem, and the architect who did the "restoration" declared that the course was playing exactly as it had in the 1930s and as Donald Ross had intended it. Enough of the puffery. Let's just admit that we like fast, smooth greens and that it requires some modest changes to the overall design intent to make that element work.

 

Unfortunately that's just not how it works in the real world. Green committees make those decisions and they change every year. It's very easy for the architect to come in and suggest keeping greens at a 10, the greens committee is all on board for a minute until the membership starts to complain that the greens are slower than their neighbors and next years greens committee tells the super to make them faster. If he (or she) doesn't listen they are out of a job.

 

Ah, the old "well intentioned green committee" bogeyman of the esteemed Golf Course Architect. Who is this "greens committee" that changes every year at Pinehurst? The uncomfortable truth is that the "greens committee" reflects the desires of the golfers (philistines!) who are the customers of the course. That said, our greens committee takes direction from our consulting architect; we set the green speeds in the target range that he recommends. OTOH they do pick the consulting architect, so it's not like they're completely out of the game.

 

See the first part of my response. Are we saying that a faithful "restoration" would include shaggy fairways that were generally firm and barely or not at all irrigated, bunkers that were never consistent and barely raked as well as bumpy greens rolling 6? I've never thought of it that way but I guess that's the literal definition of "restoration". That's just not what it means exactly in the golf course architecture business. I'm fine with changing the terminology if you want to champion that cause. If they slowed down the greens to 1930s as RK suggested wouldn't you then be playing on 2018 fairways, bunkers, tees etc but 1930s greens from a maintenance standpoint?

 

I think if you want to claim that you're rebuilding a course to reflect the "design intent" of a golden age architect, you can go one of two ways. You could bring conditions back to 1930s standard, and have no customers. Or you can work to adapt the design intent of the architect to modern agronomy and equipment. Where I think it falls apart in the modern "restoration" movement is that the greens are proudly contoured as though they're going run at 5, and then maintained at 10.

 

Mind sharing which one? Huge fan of Raynor have played almost all of his courses.

It's both the most accessible and least played of all of his work. Not on the architect/rater circuit...nor does it aspire to be.

 

I always find that an interesting question when this debate comes up. I love trying to get up and down from death and I generally hate losing balls in water but certainly no wrong answer there. My only comment is I find in general you have to miss pretty bad around the green to find yourself in thick tall fescue. I was more thinking of short siding yourself terribly say for example missing the green right on the redan at Camargo club and leaving yourself an impossible chip over a bunker to a green that slopes hard away from you. Or missing the green on 17 at Shinnecock right to a right hole location.

 

I think we got our wires crossed on this. I've got no problem with death of any kind around the green. Tall fescue, water, sand, native area, whatever.

 

What annoys me are "restored" greens like the 13th at Salem, where if you find yourself on the wrong tier of a multi-tiered green, there is no safe first putt. Any attempt you make is going off the green and then you've got to try to get up and down for bogey. I have no problem with bogey being the result of a missed spot - but it shouldn't be a double bogey or worse because you missed a wedge by 5 feet.

[Double Gee]

The Old Course at St. Andrews.

 

I've played it 3 times and can only remember 5 holes. Wonderful to play 'the home of golf' but as a golf course it's not all that.

[duffer987]

I think the question here - and it's one the treehouse gang has to wrestle with - is whether it's possible to restore a golf course to meet the golden-age architects design intent WHILE caving on modern agronomy (particularly on the greens).

 

I would posit that the real purists would like to see greens rolled back to a 6 (or less). These are the guys who break out the hickory sticks at Musselburgh. But building golf courses for that constituency is not a viable business model, so nobody does it.

 

When you think about Ross' design, it's hard for me to believe that he created greens where you were required to fly the ball to a *particular* (and small) spot or be faced with a double bogey or worse. A lot of "restored" Ross greens require just this; leave the ball in the wrong place, and your first putt rolls off the green into an abyss.

 

If restorers were truly pursuing the design intent of the architects, they would be muting green contours to match the increase in speed (with some accommodation for improved trueness). But that's not in style right now.

 

I know both you and FF play a fair bit over there as well, but this is one of the reasons I really enjoy playing the 'classic' heathland and links courses in the UK, is that due to them not having the same requirement to keep the courses in the same degree of pristineness, largely avoiding making 'improvements' based on the ideas of the time in the 60s/70s/80s and that they don't particularly care about stimps, the courses never got as far away from their original set up as the old North American courses.

 

I absolutely cringe when the most hubristic of the GCAers start picking at points to 'improve' these courses, like they have done the last decade or two in North America. Tree clearing, a new tee or two, and general modernization fair enough, but that's about it.

[FairwayFred]

Raynorfan-

 

I am happy to concede the symantics argument I am not concerned with what we are calling this type of work. Restoration, Revision, Renovation whatever. You obviously have issues with and don't like GCA and that's fine but this isn't GCA. Maybe you should go over there and discuss your issues with them? Personally I'd say you are being intellectually dishonest in this conversation. You don't really think that old courses should restore their maintainance to how it was originally, nobody thinks that and it's not something that has ever or likely will ever be done.

 

I've never played Salem so I can't comment but 3 courses that I play all the time have recently been "restored" and all 3 softened the greens slightly in spots. Say take 1% of the slope out here and there, most people won't even notice but it makes a big difference. The club I was at before I moved (a Raynor) is planning the same thing.

 

Again I've never once heard of a club doing work and then planning to have the greens roll 6.

 

True that Pinehurst does not have a greens committee I was referring more to private clubs which are the ones who are mostly doing this work. Pinehurst on the other hand has to worry about making the public happy and we all know that the public isn't going to be happy shelling out that kind of money to play #2 if the greens run 6. Also to be fair the greens at Pinehurst don't ever run 12 (except maybe during the US Open) and imo they are plenty fair and puttable at their normal every day speed which is closer to 10 when they are running fast. The last time I played there they were closer to 8.

[FairwayFred]

I think the question here - and it's one the treehouse gang has to wrestle with - is whether it's possible to restore a golf course to meet the golden-age architects design intent WHILE caving on modern agronomy (particularly on the greens).

 

I would posit that the real purists would like to see greens rolled back to a 6 (or less). These are the guys who break out the hickory sticks at Musselburgh. But building golf courses for that constituency is not a viable business model, so nobody does it.

 

When you think about Ross' design, it's hard for me to believe that he created greens where you were required to fly the ball to a *particular* (and small) spot or be faced with a double bogey or worse. A lot of "restored" Ross greens require just this; leave the ball in the wrong place, and your first putt rolls off the green into an abyss.

 

If restorers were truly pursuing the design intent of the architects, they would be muting green contours to match the increase in speed (with some accommodation for improved trueness). But that's not in style right now.

 

I know both you and FF play a fair bit over there as well, but this is one of the reasons I really enjoy playing the 'classic' heathland and links courses in the UK, is that due to them not having the same requirement to keep the courses in the same degree of pristineness, largely avoiding making 'improvements' based on the ideas of the time in the 60s/70s/80s and that they don't particularly care about stimps, the courses never got as far away from their original set up as the old North American courses.

 

I absolutely cringe when the most hubristic of the GCAers start picking at points to 'improve' these courses, like they have done the last decade or two in North America. Tree clearing, a new tee or two, and general modernization fair enough, but that's about it.

 

This is a very good point too. Seems like the only courses over there that have been messed with are the ones in The Open rota. They recently had a plan to ruin the back 9 at Cruden Bay for the Scottish Open but thankfully it got voted down.

[Londoner]

The only two courses I've gon into expecting more than I got were the Brabazon Course at The Belfry and TPC Boston. TPC Boston is just uninspiring. Meh layout except for #2 and #12. The Brabazon, I admit, was in 2013 during the drought, so I'll give it a pass on the conditions. However, I was somewhat underwhelmed with the layout except for #10. They had a "Hit the Green" challenge going and I bounced one off the green-side edge into the creek for my near miss from the whites. Incidentally, the PGA National course there was a pleasure to play. BT

I agree with this, theres nothing remotely special about the Brabazon. Some of the most forgettable golf holes I've ever played.

[Roadking2003]

 

I think the question here - and it's one the treehouse gang has to wrestle with - is whether it's possible to restore a golf course to meet the golden-age architects design intent WHILE caving on modern agronomy (particularly on the greens).

 

I would posit that the real purists would like to see greens rolled back to a 6 (or less). These are the guys who break out the hickory sticks at Musselburgh. But building golf courses for that constituency is not a viable business model, so nobody does it.

 

When you think about Ross' design, it's hard for me to believe that he created greens where you were required to fly the ball to a *particular* (and small) spot or be faced with a double bogey or worse. A lot of "restored" Ross greens require just this; leave the ball in the wrong place, and your first putt rolls off the green into an abyss.

 

If restorers were truly pursuing the design intent of the architects, they would be muting green contours to match the increase in speed (with some accommodation for improved trueness). But that's not in style right now.

 

This is true. There is no way he would have designed the greens the way he did if he knew the Stimps would be 12.

 

And I agree. "Restorations" never go back to the original design.

[FairwayFred]

 

I think the question here - and it's one the treehouse gang has to wrestle with - is whether it's possible to restore a golf course to meet the golden-age architects design intent WHILE caving on modern agronomy (particularly on the greens).

 

I would posit that the real purists would like to see greens rolled back to a 6 (or less). These are the guys who break out the hickory sticks at Musselburgh. But building golf courses for that constituency is not a viable business model, so nobody does it.

 

When you think about Ross' design, it's hard for me to believe that he created greens where you were required to fly the ball to a *particular* (and small) spot or be faced with a double bogey or worse. A lot of "restored" Ross greens require just this; leave the ball in the wrong place, and your first putt rolls off the green into an abyss.

 

If restorers were truly pursuing the design intent of the architects, they would be muting green contours to match the increase in speed (with some accommodation for improved trueness). But that's not in style right now.

 

This is true. There is no way he would have designed the greens the way he did if he knew the Stimps would be 12.

 

And I agree. "Restorations" never go back to the original design.

 

Pinehurst greens dont actually roll 12. Maybe for the Open, not for daily play. But I know that doesnt fit your ridiculous narrative. Im totally convinced your just trolling us all now. Your argument is completely intellectually dishonest. Nobody actually expects conditions to return to the late 30s when the architect talks about restoring the course how it was in the late 30s. Thats not what a restoration means in the golf course world. And im sure you know that, your making a ridiculous argument based on symantics id assume even you dont believe what you are saying.

[Fore Putt]

Ballyneal-good, but not great course. Most likely a victim of too much Doak hype.

 

Double Eagle-living off of exclusivity, nice place and course, but no business on a Top 100 list.

 

Philly Cricket-Wissahickon Nice enough, but on my Philly trip it was easily #5 of 5 courses played.

 

Dormie Club-what a mess, hopefully the new owners get it where it could/should be.

 

Old MacDonald-too wide?

 

Calling the Wissahickon course #5 on your trip to Philly isn't exactly a slight. Philadelphia is arguably the greatest golf city in America.

[dhc1]

Pinehurst greens dont actually roll 12. Maybe for the Open, not for daily play. But I know that doesnt fit your ridiculous narrative. Im totally convinced your just trolling us all now. Your argument is completely intellectually dishonest. Nobody actually expects conditions to return to the late 30s when the architect talks about restoring the course how it was in the late 30s. Thats not what a restoration means in the golf course world. And im sure you know that, your making a ridiculous argument based on symantics id assume even you dont believe what you are saying.

 

Why is it that people who disagree with you are "intellectually dishonest"? i believe the point that is being made is that the shots required/strategy are fundamentally different than what was originally intended by the original architect, all while certain restoration fans boldly state the exact opposite - that it's exactly what the architect envisioned.

[FairwayFred]

Pinehurst greens dont actually roll 12. Maybe for the Open, not for daily play. But I know that doesnt fit your ridiculous narrative. Im totally convinced your just trolling us all now. Your argument is completely intellectually dishonest. Nobody actually expects conditions to return to the late 30s when the architect talks about restoring the course how it was in the late 30s. Thats not what a restoration means in the golf course world. And im sure you know that, your making a ridiculous argument based on symantics id assume even you dont believe what you are saying.

 

Why is it that people who disagree with you are "intellectually dishonest"? i believe the point that is being made is that the shots required/strategy are fundamentally different than what was originally intended by the original architect, all while certain restoration fans boldly state the exact opposite - that it's exactly what the architect envisioned.

 

That's not what I'm trying to say at all and I apologize if I came off that way. I welcome people to disagree with me I love hearing other people's perspective on these things. I find it fascinating and have repeatedly said in many posts that there is no right or wrong only opinions.

The different and varied playing fields is one of the best parts about golf imo and the varied opinions that come with all of that variety. I love getting into that stuff with people and trying to understand their perspective especially when it is different from mine. Unfortunately RK refuses continuously to engage in any conversation about his point of view rather just saying outlandish things and not responding to any well thought out arguments or questions. This is a long standing pattern. He is arguing that the greens should go back to late 1930s maintanance standards in any "restoration" but won't answer any questions about it or engage in discussions about the rest of the course, should it be maintained to a similar late 30s standard? Can new tees be built in a restoration? Do bunkers need to be put back in the exact spot as original or do we account for longer driving distances now? I honestly don't think he believes what he is saying, I think he is just trolling us.

 

I'm not a huge fan of #2 like I said so this isn't me being a huge fan of the work blindly defending it and id love to continue to discuss "restoration" work and what everyone thinks is appropriate for this type of work as it's very common these days and a very important topic. I just don't believe anyone truly thinks that maintanance should be dialed back to a lower standard to reflect original maintanance practices when attempting to "restore" a golf course. (maybe I'm wrong?)

 

Perhaps we just need to use a different word rather than "restore" and we could all agree?

 

I started a new thread on this topic so this one doesn't get too detailed. Would love to hear everyone's thoughts!

[SixSixGolf]

Pinehurst greens dont actually roll 12. Maybe for the Open, not for daily play.

 

Bingo. Played #2 in April, greens were probably rolling about 9.

[CheckJV]

Pinehurst #5 was very disappointing. Just not a good track or in good condition. Played there years ago so maybe its been renovated but was not good when I played it.

 

#5 is not thought highly enough of to be overrated. Its always been just average.

 

Being disappointed in a course and a course being overrated are two completely different things.

 

For instance, when I played No. 5 the turf was in poor condition. There were some weeds. Some of the benches were broken. Just a few examples of why I was disappointed. This had nothing to do with how the course was rated or if I had the opinion it was overrated. In fact, I did not know anything about the course before I played it. I only left, disappointed.

[teejaywhy]

Pinehurst #2.

 

Would much rather play #8 again.

 

The amount of people that say Pinehurst #2 to this question make me put it all the way at the bottom of my courses to play list. What is it about the course? Is it just completely unremarkable outside of the greens?

 

It's just not memorable.

 

And the Crenshaw "restoration" just restored the fairways and rough. The greens were not restored. So you have a 1930s golf course with 2018 greens. That's not how it was originally designed.

 

But be careful. Criticizing the best course designed by Donald Ross will get you burned on this board.

 

This is completely untrue.

 

The restoration brought the course back to the period in the late 30s just after the "browns" (original non grass greens) were redone and turned into actual greens. The greens were mostly kept faithful to Ross design over the years while the scrubby waste ares were turned into rough by a later owner. The restoration work was mostly noticeable in the fairways and bunkers which obviously changed dramatically but the greens were also completely rebuilt and in a couple instances the contours restored where they had changed. The whole course is original. You clearly don't know anything about the restoration or history of the place which is fine it would just be nice if you stopped talking like you do.

 

FWIW I'm not a huge fan of #2 or Donald Ross who I think built a ton of better than average courses with very few (none?) truly great courses. #2 is a very enjoyable round but there's many other places id rather play.

 

My understanding that C&C did not touch the greens at #2.

[FairwayFred]

Pinehurst #2.

 

Would much rather play #8 again.

 

The amount of people that say Pinehurst #2 to this question make me put it all the way at the bottom of my courses to play list. What is it about the course? Is it just completely unremarkable outside of the greens?

 

It's just not memorable.

 

And the Crenshaw "restoration" just restored the fairways and rough. The greens were not restored. So you have a 1930s golf course with 2018 greens. That's not how it was originally designed.

 

But be careful. Criticizing the best course designed by Donald Ross will get you burned on this board.

 

This is completely untrue.

 

The restoration brought the course back to the period in the late 30s just after the "browns" (original non grass greens) were redone and turned into actual greens. The greens were mostly kept faithful to Ross design over the years while the scrubby waste ares were turned into rough by a later owner. The restoration work was mostly noticeable in the fairways and bunkers which obviously changed dramatically but the greens were also completely rebuilt and in a couple instances the contours restored where they had changed. The whole course is original. You clearly don't know anything about the restoration or history of the place which is fine it would just be nice if you stopped talking like you do.

 

FWIW I'm not a huge fan of #2 or Donald Ross who I think built a ton of better than average courses with very few (none?) truly great courses. #2 is a very enjoyable round but there's many other places id rather play.

 

My understanding that C&C did not touch the greens at #2.

 

I'm pretty sure they regrassed them all as well as making some very subtle changes on a couple of them.

[teejaywhy]

 

This is completely untrue.

 

The restoration brought the course back to the period in the late 30s just after the "browns" (original non grass greens) were redone and turned into actual greens. The greens were mostly kept faithful to Ross design over the years while the scrubby waste ares were turned into rough by a later owner. The restoration work was mostly noticeable in the fairways and bunkers which obviously changed dramatically but the greens were also completely rebuilt and in a couple instances the contours restored where they had changed. The whole course is original. You clearly don't know anything about the restoration or history of the place which is fine it would just be nice if you stopped talking like you do.

 

FWIW I'm not a huge fan of #2 or Donald Ross who I think built a ton of better than average courses with very few (none?) truly great courses. #2 is a very enjoyable round but there's many other places id rather play.

 

My understanding that C&C did not touch the greens at #2.

 

I'm pretty sure they regrassed them all as well as making some very subtle changes on a couple of them.

 

From pinehurst.com:

 

"Features of the project include:

- Increase fairway widths Fairways were widened by as much as 50%, offering more strategic options in playing holes from tee to green.

- Removal of rough All rough was eliminated, establishing two heights of grass: greens and everything else.

- Reintroduction of natural areas 35 acres of irrigated turf were removed, restoring natural areas of sand, wire grass, pine straw and a variety of native grasses.

- Turf maintenance 650 irrigation heads were eliminated, and the centerline irrigation was restored.

- Wiregrass More than 200,000 plants were added

- Overseeding Eliminated during the winter months, allowing for firm, fast conditions throughout the year

- Increased length Thirteen new tees were added to the championship course, increasing the total championship length by more than 300 yards, to 7,565 from 7,214.

- Bunker modifications Several bunkers were restored, eliminated or reshaped based on aerial images of the course from the 1940s, and bunkers were edged to create rustic appearance

- Greens Only two (15 and 17) were modified slightly to increase hole locations.

- Cart paths Relocated and concrete removed."

 

I do remember a conversation about converting the greens from bent to bermuda, but I was thinking that took place before the C&C work. I'll have to do some more research...

*EDIT*

also from Pinehurst.com:

"Pinehurst Resort & Country Club announced on Sept. 4, 2014, the reopening of Pinehurst No. 2 following a conversion of its greens from bent grass to ultradwarf bermudagrass."

 

This is three years after the C&C renovation.

[FairwayFred]

 

This is completely untrue.

 

The restoration brought the course back to the period in the late 30s just after the "browns" (original non grass greens) were redone and turned into actual greens. The greens were mostly kept faithful to Ross design over the years while the scrubby waste ares were turned into rough by a later owner. The restoration work was mostly noticeable in the fairways and bunkers which obviously changed dramatically but the greens were also completely rebuilt and in a couple instances the contours restored where they had changed. The whole course is original. You clearly don't know anything about the restoration or history of the place which is fine it would just be nice if you stopped talking like you do.

 

FWIW I'm not a huge fan of #2 or Donald Ross who I think built a ton of better than average courses with very few (none?) truly great courses. #2 is a very enjoyable round but there's many other places id rather play.

 

My understanding that C&C did not touch the greens at #2.

 

I'm pretty sure they regrassed them all as well as making some very subtle changes on a couple of them.

 

From pinehurst.com:

 

"Features of the project include:

- Increase fairway widths Fairways were widened by as much as 50%, offering more strategic options in playing holes from tee to green.

- Removal of rough All rough was eliminated, establishing two heights of grass: greens and everything else.

- Reintroduction of natural areas 35 acres of irrigated turf were removed, restoring natural areas of sand, wire grass, pine straw and a variety of native grasses.

- Turf maintenance 650 irrigation heads were eliminated, and the centerline irrigation was restored.

- Wiregrass More than 200,000 plants were added

- Overseeding Eliminated during the winter months, allowing for firm, fast conditions throughout the year

- Increased length Thirteen new tees were added to the championship course, increasing the total championship length by more than 300 yards, to 7,565 from 7,214.

- Bunker modifications Several bunkers were restored, eliminated or reshaped based on aerial images of the course from the 1940s, and bunkers were edged to create rustic appearance

- Greens Only two (15 and 17) were modified slightly to increase hole locations.

- Cart paths Relocated and concrete removed."

 

I do remember a conversation about converting the greens from bent to bermuda, but I was thinking that took place before the C&C work. I'll have to do some more research...

*EDIT*

also from Pinehurst.com:

"Pinehurst Resort & Country Club announced on Sept. 4, 2014, the reopening of Pinehurst No. 2 following a conversion of its greens from bent grass to ultradwarf bermudagrass."

 

This is three years after the C&C renovation.

 

Great info thanks!

[Roadking2003]

Pinehurst greens dont actually roll 12. Maybe for the Open, not for daily play. But I know that doesnt fit your ridiculous narrative. Im totally convinced your just trolling us all now. Your argument is completely intellectually dishonest. Nobody actually expects conditions to return to the late 30s when the architect talks about restoring the course how it was in the late 30s. Thats not what a restoration means in the golf course world. And im sure you know that, your making a ridiculous argument based on symantics id assume even you dont believe what you are saying.

 

Why is it that people who disagree with you are "intellectually dishonest"? i believe the point that is being made is that the shots required/strategy are fundamentally different than what was originally intended by the original architect, all while certain restoration fans boldly state the exact opposite - that it's exactly what the architect envisioned.

 

Exactly! Hitting shots to greens that stimp at 11 or 12 is very different than hitting to the same green that stimps at 6. Inverted saucer greens are quite interesting and fun when stimps are 6. Not so much when they are 12.