Anyone watch the ball golf U.S. Open? Supposedly, Pinehurst 2 is some supreme test of golf. It certainly requires intense concentration much like an air traffic controller. Frankly, I found it rather boring from a course variety standpoint and certainly doesn't do a good job spreading scores. Considering the money involved in the sport, you would think they could afford more variety in the hole designs.

Seemed like every green was crowned making it too much risk for the reward to go for the pin on every green and most putts. The design concept is excellent and most of the holes were good to great on their own, but with the same repetitive concept. As Houck as said, you can have too much of a good thing. A DG course with the 18 best hyzer holes in the world might be interesting but not a good course and test for tournaments.

No OB or water hazards on Pinehurst 2. They say it tests all the shots but it seemed like being a good short chipper was the favored skill. It's a nice adaptation of a Scottish links style course but the pot bunkers seem deeper and the grass higher in the British Open where you see the "real" thing. Even with two miles of yellow rope, anyone who plays the USDGC sees much more hole variety, although we could certainly use all the "green" that ball golf has...

I believe that #2 is not TV friendly. I have had the chance to walk #2 and I can tell it is not as boring as you think. The USGA has to put their two cent in with thier crazy pin placements and rough length. Could you imagine Hole 5 at rock hill with the fairway 1/2 as wide a couple more small trees around the lake with the green elevated and closer to to the shore.

Also this course was designed around 1907. What will people be saying about The "great" disc golf courses of today in 100 years.

Seems like there were a lot of bunkers that the commentators kept talking about. I know there is another thread for this, but I believe we can adapt bunkers (or other "Hazard" areas) into Disc Golf play that will make your shot selection much more critical. I know I saw several players not challenge certain areas because of bunkers. You don't have to have lots of OB to make a course tough.

My point is that they've had 100 years to improve it. In 100 years, I'd hope Winthrop and other championship courses wouldn't need yellow rope and would have mostly natural OB.

i guess you have to see the course in person. I believe the course rewards the consistant golfer. But believe me i cant afford the $300 greens fees plus caddie for you to play it :eek:

Swede Peter Hedblom was interviewed after he shot a 66 in the second round, the low round of the tournament. He said the only reason he got birdies is because he was aiming for the center of green and mis-hit it near the pin. That's bogus.

This would be like a disc golf course where the only way to get birdies would be to accidentally bank it off a tree towards the basket.

Of course, that kind of luck eventually caught up with Hedblom, but the way those greens are allows these inconsistencies because no one can fire at the flag.

Normally, I'm a really big fan of USGA layouts because it puts a premium on driving accuracy. I like that they let the rough grow and penalize the big hitters who can't find the fairway and reward the short hitter who puts it down the middle every time. It's a great equalizer.

The corollary in disc golf are the tight-wooded courses that take big arms out of their element and make them focus on accuracy and hitting narrow fairways. Depending on where you live, a lot of golfers don't have these skills because they play primarily open crusher courses.

I guess the closest thing we have to Pinehurst#2 in disc golf are the fast greens at DeLaveaga, where you can get a nasty rollaway. However, watching the U.S. Open all weekend, it seems like the combination of the high rough and those gimmicky greens makes for golf that is almost unnatural.

Fly 18
100% nautral
No ropes
No gimics
No luck
Best golf wins......... :)

Renny Gold comes to mind...only a couple of hours from Pinehurst, too!

Peter Jacobson's ace was nice, not that he needed the money, I have probably given him a couple of thousand over years playing Golden Tee 00- 05

I totally agree with you on the point that the U.S.Open puts the premium on driving accuracy, but the short game is equally as important in the U.S. Open. I don't think that the greens at Pinehust #2 were gimmicky, just some of the hardest anyone has ever seen. They reward great shots, and most of the time punish even mediocre shots. Hedblom did get some very lucky bounces, but that is golf. As you mentioned this eventualy caught up with him. My point is that Pinehurst #2 is not in any way flukey. It was exactly what a U.S.Open should be, the ultimate test in all of golf. Just like our USDGC's. Some may call Winthrop Gold unatural and lucky, but it is not. A U.S. Open type of golf is supposed to make you think outside of the box. Create shots you would normally never play. Test all of your skills, and expose your weakness. That is what makes it so fun to watch, and in our case with the USDGC's, to play in. Can't wait to watch The British at the home of golf itself, St. Andrews!!! :cool:

I love greens that make the player focus on the speed of the putt as much as the accuracy of the putt ... in both ball and disc golf. At this point of disc golf evolution, I believe 'fast' greens are the most underrated aspect of disc golf course design. I live near Seneca Creek and there are many fast greens on this course. I can't tell you how many times I have to lay up from 35' away because of the slope of the green. If you miss metal, or even if you hit dead center chains with too much speed causing a spit out, the possibility of the roll down the hill is just too punishing to justify going for the birdie. I would favor courses in Texas, Florida, or anywhere else where elevation is absent, to build US Open type mounds for their greens when possible. There is large part of me that has a problem with players being able to blast putts at the target all day with little to no regard to the speed of the putt. Of course, taking away the upper assembly and the chains would put a premium on the speed of the putt, but that is for another thread ;)

I think there are a lot of possibilities when it comes to course design. Including danger around the greens for approaches including dropoffs heavy slopes requiring left to right as well as right to left approaches. a lot of talk goes against the use of rope to define out-of-bounds and so forth. this really is no different than defining fairways by shortly cut grass. It just penalizes a stroke every time and doesn't allow a player to make a risk-reward shot. I like the idea of bunker type hazards restricting flightlines or throwing motion how to pull it off is another thread. We can get more out of our land if we try and step out of the same old way of thinking... Why do you think USDGC is so highly regarded umong the very best players?... They took the first step in the right direction... [Rant over]

ce

My point is that they've had 100 years to improve it. In 100 years, I'd hope Winthrop and other championship courses wouldn't need yellow rope and would have mostly natural OB.


What would constitute improving Pinehurst #2?

By improvement do you mean widening the statistical spread of final scores? I'm not sure that's always the yardstick to use when evaluating whether or not a course is good.

Even saying that, the scores posted for Pinehurst #2 had a pretty good spread, didn't they? For those that made the cut, they ranged from par to 25-over, among 83 players. The top 11 were spread from par to 8-over. The leader won by 2 shots, and second beat third by three shots. Isn't that a good spread of scores?

I love greens that make the player focus on the speed of the putt as much as the accuracy of the putt ... in both ball and disc golf. At this point of disc golf evolution, I believe 'fast' greens are the most underrated aspect of disc golf course design. I live near Seneca Creek and there are many fast greens on this course. I can't tell you how many times I have to lay up from 35' away because of the slope of the green. If you miss metal, or even if you hit dead center chains with too much speed causing a spit out, the possibility of the roll down the hill is just too punishing to justify going for the birdie. I would favor courses in Texas, Florida, or anywhere else where elevation is absent, to build US Open type mounds for their greens when possible. There is large part of me that has a problem with players being able to blast putts at the target all day with little to no regard to the speed of the putt. Of course, taking away the upper assembly and the chains would put a premium on the speed of the putt, but that is for another thread ;)



The difference is our mounds would have to be much larger given how much bigger a disc and target is than a ball and hole. Our 30 footers are more like 8 footers in ball golf, so we would have to adjust slopes accordingly. I do very much enjoy fast greens though, especially from the 100-200' upshot range as you really have to decide what angle and where you want to place your shot instead of just flinging it towards the target.

well put, mad town.

" Some may call Winthrop Gold unatural and lucky, but it is not."

i definitely agree that Winthrop Gold is a very fair, tough test of golf. the "unatural" that many people refer to is the yellow rope and triple mando.

as for mando's, i believe they should be used mainly in parks for safety reasons, should be placed early off the tee, be easily avoidable, and be mainly flight directors and not hazards.

the problem i have with the yellow rope is a visibility issue. for players and spectators alike there is an out-of-bounds line that meanders alongside the "fairway", but the distinction is definitely not as clear as a street, rock wall, or circle of hay bales. the issue particularly arises on the videos where the hole and it's hazards are not particularly well defined.

in contrast to yellow rope is the cartpath on the 630 ft. par 4 hole 1 at the Red Hawk Landing Disc Golf Course which will be used for The Players Cup in November. over the very visible cartpath left is OB:
www.etherbinge.com/MVC-877S.JPG (http://www.etherbinge.com/MVC-877S.JPG)

What would constitute improving Pinehurst #2?



Perhaps it would be difficult to improve Pinehurst #2 without reducing it's links style elements. However, it seems like the Scottish courses it's trying to emulate have more variety than P2, like deeper bunkers and higher grass in the rough.

I read a little about Donald Ross the designer and it turns out that P2 is unique in his portfolio of courses. He didn't really do another course like it anywhere even though this is one he's most remembered by. Due to green maintenance over the years, other designers have felt the greens have become more crowned than Ross intended because they have been adding sand to the middle when needed. So, it's unclear whether he would have approved of the settings for this last weekend.

Would anyone that actually played competive golf or that has played Pinehurst number 2 post??

Oh wait, thats me....so I guess I will.

Pinehurst is the most frustrating course I have ever played (and I have played 4 courses used in PGA play).....

It doesnt need OB or water....the test of a course with lots of OB or water is placement....at Pinehurst, the placement is even more key without the penalty. You could literally hit a spot on the green and be perfect, or miss that spot by 3 feet and be 100 feet from the hole...

Walking up 18, remembering Payne's putt and then seeing the statue is truly chilling

What would constitute improving Pinehurst #2?



Perhaps it would be difficult to improve Pinehurst #2 without reducing it's links style elements. However, it seems like the Scottish courses it's trying to emulate have more variety than P2, like deeper bunkers and higher grass in the rough.

I read a little about Donald Ross the designer and it turns out that P2 is unique in his portfolio of courses. He didn't really do another course like it anywhere even though this is one he's most remembered by. Due to green maintenance over the years, other designers have felt the greens have become more crowned than Ross intended because they have been adding sand to the middle when needed. So, it's unclear whether he would have approved of the settings for this last weekend.


Interesting! They did seem to roll off those greens...

You could literally hit a spot on the green and be perfect, or miss that spot by 3 feet and be 100 feet from the hole...




That's the part that seems unrealistic. It's like having to hit a triple mando that's less than half the size of the one at Winthrop. If the top players can't consistently execute shots of the quality required, it then becomes more luck than actual skill that determines the winner.

For example, imagine if a basketball hoop was made smaller (like carnival games) so there was only half of the current diametrical clearance. It might drop the 3-point and other shooting percentage to the point where slam dunks were the only decent shots. If the challenge is too tough for the top players, scoring almost becomes more luck than skill.

We have the same thing in DG with fairway width in the woods. When is the clearance not wide enough? It depends on the skill level of the players a hole is intended for. As you gradually narrow the opening (if that were possible), there becomes a point where even the best players could throw blindfolded and have as good (maybe better) of a chance to get thru.

Years ago my dad and I tried to walk on at Pinehurst during a weekday. SEVEN courses and they couldn't get us in. We went about ten minutes down the road to a beautiful place called Foxfire. We played both courses and pretty much had the place to ourselves. It would have been nice to say I played Pinehurst though.

nicley put Chuck...My first round of golf was at Pinehurst #2 My wife and myself were opening up a gallery for golf and we were invited to stay with the owners in a 27 bedroom mansion.It was a long day....Trees in the fairway is now a unfair way disc golf likes to make the hole hard by making it lucky tiger dont win with luck...

Trees in the fairway is an unfair way disc golf designers like to make the hole hard by making it lucky tiger dont win with luck...



I completley agree. A Fairway is a fairway and should be free of trees. It can be as tight as they want and lined with trees but dont put trees in the middle of the fairway. Its just stupid. I mean making a fairway 15 feet wide is hard enough, but then they go and throw 5 trees sparaticly from tee to basket. Thats not skill its total luck. Those are the worst courses EVER. Those courses are the ones where crappy players get lucky throwing bad shots and shoot hot. Then skilled players can throw great shots and get screwed. Thats not fun or fair. Make the fairways as tight as you want just CLEAR THEM OUT so that if you hit the fairway you dont hit any trees.

What are you talking about Pimp. What you call the lucky route around the trees, I call a fairway. ;)

Make the fairways as tight as you want just CLEAR THEM OUT so that if you hit the fairway you dont hit any trees.



I have heard from a reliable source, that this was a design favorite by one of the sports founders, Steady Ed. It is told that Ed like forcing players to have to shoot around obstacles like trees in the middle of fairways, and having trees blocking the route off the tee box (hole #5 at Redstone Arsenal).

But that was in the days of Frisbee golf. Some changes should be made to adjust for the advancement of technology. Throws that were fun with a frisbee are sometimes not fun with a golf disc.

Sometimes you just have to take a chainsaw to the golf course and pull a "Hammock". :o

I would agree that trees strategically left in the fairway are obstacles, where trees that are randomly spread in the fairway and can't realy be avoided, then they are luck farms.

What I mean is if there is a line that can be aimed for that avoids the trees, then they are obstacles. If the trees are just there and you have to throw and hope you get through clean then they are lucky.

I would agree that trees strategically left in the fairway are obstacles, where trees that are randomly spread in the fairway and can't realy be avoided, then they are luck farms.

What I mean is if there is a line that can be aimed for that avoids the trees, then they are obstacles. If the trees are just there and you have to throw and hope you get through clean then they are lucky.



**** Skippy, /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

Trees in the fairway is an unfair way disc golf designers like to make the hole hard by making it lucky tiger dont win with luck...



I completley agree. A Fairway is a fairway and should be free of trees. It can be as tight as they want and lined with trees but dont put trees in the middle of the fairway. Its just stupid. I mean making a fairway 15 feet wide is hard enough, but then they go and throw 5 trees sparaticly from tee to basket. Thats not skill its total luck. Those are the worst courses EVER. Those courses are the ones where crappy players get lucky throwing bad shots and shoot hot. Then skilled players can throw great shots and get screwed. Thats not fun or fair. Make the fairways as tight as you want just CLEAR THEM OUT so that if you hit the fairway you dont hit any trees.



I agree with you. To a point. The thing is, with discs... a fairway is not a defined area on the ground, not at all. A fairway is a flight path. Sure you can land "in the [I'm a potty-mouth!]" or in the open, but the fact is that having a plethora of trees seemingly "in the fairway" as you'd say doesn't doom a hole at ALL. It doesn't narrow it all down to luck. Usually if you pay attention you can find that hyzer route, or that anney route around them that is really not half as hard as it seems.

There is a new course around here, Parmalee Park, in Lambertville... beautiful place if you like densely wooded areas. It hasn't had time to be beaten down yet, the most "pathlike" areas are still semi-overgrown (but getting better at an exponential rate as more players go there)... the trees are disgusting. There are eleven holes in those woods. Each hole has one to three possible routes, all of them narrow and seemingly "lucky" as you would say... the thing is, how can a course be lucky when a group of three-to-five of the best area players pull regular scores of 8 or 9 down? No matter how lucky a course may seem, it really just requires the correct routes.


-Chris.

Maybe it's because 16/18 holes are less than 300 feet. Maybe the "best people in the area" can throw putters accurately.........so basically the number of birdies depends on the number of putts made.