No. 2's Greens Not as Ross Intended?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

As always, you're certainly free to believe whatever "legends" you want to believe or not believe. I'll be more than happy to just call both Stephen Kay and Pete and Alice Dye and ask them about some of these stories and their details.

As far as I've ever known Pete and Alice went to Rollins College just outside Orlando Fla. (Pete apparently also went to nearby Stetson College) and both played good golf down there in those days. That's where my Dad obviously got to know them both as they all played good competitive golf in Florida back then. As far as Pete running an AFB during the war, I never knew that. In the beginning of the war Pete would've been 17 years old and 20 at the end of the war. And I didn't know Pete hung around Pinehurst a lot either. I always thought the Dyes split their time between the east coast of Florida and Indiana. So, I still can't figure out how Pete hung around Donald Ross so much. But just asking either of them could sure clear that up.

To me what Jeff Brauer said about a topdressing procedure on #2's greens using a circular dragging method with horses or whatever is probably the most logical explanation yet of how Pinehurst #2's greens may've become crowned over time towards the middle of the greens.

And again, I'll just ask Stephen Kay again about the details of his USGA spec green layering miscalculation story and the grading down of the edges to the surrounds that may've led to more crowning or raising of #2's greens that may've led to balls shedding off those greens more than originally.

Kay didn't work for Dye. Kay worked for Bill Newcomb, a very good player from Indiana who worked for Dye for a few years in the 1960s. My recollection is Kay said Newcomb got into golf architecture sort of incidentally because he could draw well and did some initial drawing for a lady from Michigan State U. who was doing something in architecture and couldn't draw. Plans had to be submitted and he helped her by drawing the plans. Then Newcomb got involved with Pete in the Midwest and when Pete got to the point where he became well known and really busy he just let Bill Newcomb do one of the courses he was scheduled to do.

By the way, Tom, nobody that I'm aware of, other than JWL and you on here, said 18 inches of additional layering was added to Pinehurst #2's greens during a USGA spec rebuild. I don't know where JWL might've read that. All Kay said in his story about the greens is they put more back into them than they took out of them which resulted in more height that had to somehow be tied in at the greens sides to the exisiting surrounds that weren't touched.

[T_MacWood]

TE
I believe the 18" is the thickness of the sand and gravel layer in a USGA green that supposedly Ed Connor didn't take into account, I don't believe you (and evidently Stephen Kay) ever said precisely how off the height of the greens were, only they were off due to this miscalculation. In the very first post on this thread Matthew mentions 18"....perhaps he simply surmised the figure.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Even the application of the top dressing, using the circular horse drawn device, wouldn't ameliorate the effects of rain, irrigation, wind, mowing and gravity, hence I have a hard time accepting the creation of crowns due to top dressing.

Especially to the tune of 18 inches.

Tom MacWood,

I don't think that is the thickness of the gravel and sand layer in USGA greens, perhaps you're confusing it with the root zone mix, which was prescribed at about 14 inches.   The old, choker sand zone was much smaller.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
That was Matthew's figure (in the first post), not mine, I really have no idea. I'll see if I can get a hold of Hurdzan's brand new book on the history of green construction to see what is what.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

USGA green specs have changed, but back in the late 80's they recommended a 4 inch gravel bed, 4-6 inches of sand and then 12-14 inches of root zone mix.

The newer specs call for the choker sand section to be optional, but, it's usually recommended that particle size go from small to large as one descends into the ground, allowing for good percolation rates, and taking into consideration the local conditions.

[TEPaul]

First of all, probably the thing to do with Pinehurst #2's greens is to determine if they actually did become more "crowned" than Donald Ross may have built them or intended them to be! If that proves to be true the next thing to do would logically be to determine when and how!

A few architects seem to be pretty sure they did become more crowned, even how and when. Other architects seem to disagree at least with the when and how.

But a thread like this shows how misinformation can get disseminated and end up being assumed as fact at some point.

Stephen Kay never mentioned 18" of increased height as is now being bandied about on this thread as close to fact. He never mentioned that the miscalculation involved just the green mix layer or even what the increased height was--only that it was higher than the previous greens (by some amount because it didn't tie in well enough to the green surrounds). All he said is the orginal greens (or previous greens---probably sand push-ups) were cored out and replaced with USGA spec greens that require a different construction method and obviously a series of layers that is not the same thing, and presumably the same total height as the old push-ups they replaced were!

On the other hand, if #2s greens were constantly topdressed with that topdressing worked in by using a circular method that started in the middle on those greens I certainly can see how over time that topdressing and the method of spreading it and working it in could create crowning. Although, one might assume that topdressing would work it's way downhill by gravity, something like that on a grass green would be extremely minimal, in my opinion (and would probably require almost an instant deluge situation immediately after being applied!). There's no question at all that contours can be intentionally changed by topdressing. Matter of fact, we might attempt to do that very thing minimally on a few new contours on one of our greens. We expect the process to take a couple of years. The sand will remain where it was worked in and consequently, over time, increase the height of the growing medium and the height of the area it was applied to!

 

[Tom_Doak]

As Jim Lipe mentions, Ed Connor rebuilt the greens at No. 2 twice, once in the early 1980's.  The first time, the greens were not rebuilt precisely ... Ed showed me a dip on the right side of the 18th green which he filled in 3-4 inches to make it less severe, at the urging of the Pinehurst staff.  He said there were a handful of other modifications, but he didn't say anything about an overall change.  There is no way the greens got built up 18 inches too high at that time; the mistake would be way too obvious, and Ed Connor wouldn't have stood for it.  [Actually, he would have been too busy falling off his tractor!]

Pete Dye's story is that the greens were topdressed up to roughly their present shape by 1946 or 1947, when he chatted with Donald Ross.  It is entirely possible this was the case.  Common bermuda greens were heavily topdressed in those days ... when we rebuilt the greens at Yeamans Hall we had to remove about a foot of topdressing sand from the middle of the greens, which had shrunk to half their size before the addition of topdressing.

The deeper meaning of Pete's story is that he seems to be saying that all this careful preservation and restoration of Ross's work is misguided ... that if Ross were alive today he would be lengthening his holes and changing greens which have evolved over time.  That may [or may not] be true at Pinehurst No. 2, but it's dangerous to expand the argument to other golf courses, because Mr. Ross didn't say anything about them.

The funny thing is, Pete Dye has always been one of the biggest fans of Pinehurst No. 2 ... so it's odd for him to be saying the greens are not what they're meant to be.  Without its greens, No. 2 wouldn't be very highly regarded, would it?

[T_MacWood]

"Ross, Tillinghast and MacKenzie were great architects, and everything possible should be done to preserve their ideals and their actual layouts...it may be possible to add length by relocation of teeing areas, but in no event should any changes to greens and greenside bunkering be attempted. Where such alterations has been tried, it has been to the detriment of the design."  ~~ Pete Dye

[BCrosby]

Tom Doak says:

"Pete Dye's story is that the greens were topdressed up to roughly their present shape by 1946 or 1947, when he chatted with Donald Ross.  It is entirely possible this was the case.  Common bermuda greens were heavily topdressed in those days ... when we rebuilt the greens at Yeamans Hall we had to remove about a foot of topdressing sand from the middle of the greens, which had shrunk to half their size before the addition of topdressing."

The same story applies to many older greens in the SE. The early Bermuda hybrids were very coarse and heavily top-dressed until "finer" hybrids were developed in the '50's.

I would imagine that there was even more top dressing at Pinehurst in the 30's and 40's when they were trying to please a northern clientele accustomed to much smoother bent greens.

Bob

[TEPaul]

There seems to be a lot of conflicting opinion about Pinehurst #2s greens and their evolution--even apparently conflicting opinion on the part of particular people and what they've said over time---apparently even including the opinions of Pete Dye. That probably shouldn't really surprise anyone---opinions do change over time sometimes and that certainly can happen without any of us having to come to the conclusion that some architect is selling out his principles or selling his soul!  

As far as I'm concerned with the greens of Pinehurst #2 the most important question is how well are they working now---despite what they may have been and how, when or why they've evolved or changed over time?

In my opinion, this subject of Pinehurst #2s greens and their evolutionary "crowning" isn't that much different from the on-going subject and phenomenon of "evolutionary sand build up" on the fronting faces of bunkers (that can evolve into green contour and slope immediately over them) of some of the old bunkers on various courses such as Merion East.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I believe a good and constructive case could probably be made by any competent and thoughtful architect either way but there are various additional factors to consider today when considering whether to take evolutionary sand build-up out or just leave it the way it's evolved.

Frankly, in my opinion, in most cases, I'd say just leave it exactly how it's evolved. There seems to be a certain poetic justice in it, it's a slow process that is the result of golf actually being played on courses over time---as today green speed is far quicker making some evolutionary build-up more intense to play as well as the fact that today's aerial game is far better and more effective than it was decades ago!

[T_MacWood]

What physically happens with top dressing that causes the green surface to rise...is it rising from below from build up that pushes it up or does it rise the result of an extremely thin layer of sand on top of the grass? How far can a green rise in a given year as the result of heavy top dressing?

[TEPaul]

Tom:

Topdressing increases the growing medium when applied. Topdressing is basically sand, it has volume, and it doesn't decompose or breakdown, so obviously as it's continually applied over time, over years and decades, the volume, height etc increases!

This is as true on greens as it is on the faces of bunker surrounds where constant and everyday "sand-splash" by golfers out of bunkering continuously increases the volume of sand and consequent height of bunker face surrounds!

In some cases, such as Merion East's #8 or #13, or PVGC's #17 which have heavily used fronting bunkers the evolutionary build-up (sand splash) causes bunker faces to grow as much as 2-3-4 feet or more over extended periods of time. Comparing and measuring early photos against current photos can prove this beyond doubt. Green build-up through topdressing is virtually no different although obviously not as excessive as bunker face sand splash.

Tom, if you really are into architectural restoration, particularly in it's purist forms, things such as this, and the details of it you'll just have to become familiar with--as it really is of significance---as well as what to do about it in restoration projects. There're plenty of things that also need to be considered today vis-a-vis playability (increased greenspeed and evolutionarily altered slope and contour) before a competent decision is made one way or the other.

[T_MacWood]

TE
I'm familar with top dressing (I'm an old golf course hand at OSU and my father was a greenkeeper outside NYC during the Depression)...my question had to do with what physically occured that caused the green to rise.

Its true the sand fills the voids and the sand is more dense than the soil mixture it displaces....but how does this phenomenon cause the green to rise? Conversely would a green sink (though the process of decomposition) if it were not top dressed...I've never top dressed my lawn and it doesn't appear to be sinking. I suspect the thin layer of sand on the surface is what causes the green to rise over the years...the question is how much can it rise per year as the result of heavy top dressing. Do you know?

As a 'purest' I lean toward preservation over restoration, I'm concerned that the restoration trend may do as much bad as good.

[TEPaul]

"Its true the sand fills the voids and the sand is more dense than the soil mixture it displaces...."

What soil mixture are you talking about sand topdressing displacing? Are you thinking about thatch and such that's pulled out of greens during the aeriation process? I guess one should logically assume that more volume in the form of topdressing and such goes onto greens over time than is displaced from decompostion or removal. When that happens over time something's got to give and it pretty much would have to be manifested in some form of increase in volume logically creating height of surface in some form, particularly on constantly and frequently topdressed greens like #2's have been.

Can you imagine a similar process (although obviously not as excessive) to what happens to some fronting bunker tops that have increased as much as a number of feet in height over time? Are you aware of the extend of evolutionary sand build up on bunker tops over time? And if you are, what would you recommend be done about it? Let it continue to build-up evolutionarily or remove it from time to time in some restoration process to what it was originally?

[T_MacWood]

TE
How much can a green rise per year as the result of heavy top dressing?

[JWL]

Tom Mac
Of course every situation differs, but I am leaving tomorrow morning for Cabo to give the final approval on the renovation of the greens at Cabo del Sol.
Over 10 years, the greens have a sand topdressing buildup of approximately 4 inches.  The original grass was Tif Dwarf which required more than the ultra dwarfs of today.   Todays bermuda grass are considerably more dense, thus lighter topdressings are required to gain the smoothness desired.
We are putting TifEagle on the renovated greens.
This should make the greens much less grainy and faster which has been the biggest negative at Cabo del Sol.  We hope to have it all completed for the upcoming season which begins early Oct.
Other changes have been made, specifically a new and improved 16th green hanging on the beach/cliff edge 20 yards back of the previous green.  All bunkers have been rejuvenated.   The course should be spectacular in the fall.
Hope this gives you some indication of what topdressing can do to change, and often soften greens.   There is no doubt that heavy topdressing tends to migrate to the lows off the highs, thus the softening effect.

[jim_lewis]

If you guys ever determine for sure who is responsible for the current greens at #2, please let me know.  I am anxious to thank that person because the greens are great as they exist today. Probably the best collection of green complexes I have seen anywhere.  Frankly, I don't care much how they arrived at their current state, but I would personnally "lie down in front of the bulldozer" if anyone decided to change them.  Until someone convinces my closed mind otherwise, I will continue to give credit to Mr. Ross.  BTW, I find it hard to believe that Pete Dye had very many conversations with Donald Ross before he died. How many of us (who are old enough) can recall conversations accurately after 50+ years?

[TEPaul]

"TE
How much can a green rise per year as the result of heavy top dressing?"

Tom:

I guess I should assume that's a serious question!

Weeell, let's say you dump a bunch of tons of topdressing on a medium size green and hope like hell at some point the grass might peak through---maybe you could get the green to rise by 4-5 inches in one year depending whether you got lucky and didn't get a deluge and have it all slip off the green due to Pat's ideas of how gravity will take all the top dressing off a green that actually sheets drains in some direction!  

[TEPaul]

Jim Lewis:

Don't bother telling Tom MacWood the greens of Pinehurst #2 play great in their present crowned state. All that matters to Tom is those greens should be preserved the way Donald Ross had them---whatever way that may have been! It doesn't really matter what golfers today think of those present greens even if they absolutely love and respect them. It's only matters that they be the way they were when Donald R was around because he was the genius and that's all that should be important to the golfers who play #2!  

[T_MacWood]

JWL
Thanks for the response.

TE
I just had interesting conversation with Mike Hurdzan (he's probably devoted as much time and study to the history of green construction and green maintenance as anyone) and he thought the normal build up from top dressing would be 1/16th of an inch to 1/8th of an inch annualy. The heavier proponents might be closer to 1/4 or 1/2 inch which is consistant with JWL.  He said if they were really dumping it--like Pinehurst?--it could maybe get close to an inch a year.

Top dressing has been in practice since the time of Old Tom-- if not before. And as long as it has been in practice there has been build up, resulting in the greens rising very slightly each year. IMO the architects of Ross's era understood this phenomenon, just as the architects today, and took it into account as the normal evolution of a green.

From what I've seen in old photos the greens at Pinehurst #2 have always been crowned (1935 on). How much they've risen over the years is hard to say, and probably impossible to determine at this point since they were excavated and  rebuilt....but I reckon Ed Connor might know.

I agree with Jim Lewis...they are special

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW;

Looks like we agree. But what if some Ross construction drawings were uncovered showing clearly #2's greens were not originally built "crowned"? Would you say they should not be crowned now or would you say the way they've evolved today, for whatever reason, is the way they should be?

That might be a pretty tough question for a self-proclaimed architectural ultra-purist!

[TEPaul]

Tom:

I'm glad you had a conversation on agronomy and the effects of build-up from topdressing with Michael Hurzdan. It sounds like he was about in line on it with some of the others on here. I do remember you saying on here once that Hurzdan was critical of the early agronomic "liming culture" philosophy of "agrostologists" Piper and Oakley.

He's probably right about that but one must keep in mind how rudimentary golf agronomy was in that early era of the teens and 20s. Those guys were just trying to get things to grow! Unfortunately, with their "liming culture" they probably got too many things to grow!

[Patrick_Mucci]

In what year did Pinehurst convert from sand to grass greens ?

[T_MacWood]

TE
I'm not up on early agronomic principals, including "liming culture" philosophy of "agrostologists", but I do know Hurdzan is a disciple of Frederick Taylor and he believes his death set the field of golf course agronomy back decades, largely because Piper and Oakley did not grasp or embrace his ideas. Then again I don't pretend to be an expert in this area....far from it.

Pat
Pinehurst #2 was converted to grass greens in 1935.

Regarding the USGA spec green, Hurdzan's book claims the root zone is aproximately 12" and consists of some combination of sand, soil and organic matter....then comes the 4" of gravel.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

That may be today's spec's, but in the 80's there was a 4-6 inch layer of sand in the USGA spec's, which are available in a pamphlet they published.