News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Engineers CC - 16th hole - changes coming
« Reply #25 on: September 06, 2004, 05:47:56 PM »
That's an interesting dilemma, Tripp.  Pasatiempo is another example of a course where many formerly pinnable places are no longer available.  Front of #8, front of #16, middle center of #11, all are way too steeply sloped (5 degrees +?) for pin positions.  Slower stimps are the answer but everybody gets excited about 11-12.  How can you persuade the membership to keep those cool greens and slow down the speed?

Tripp_Davis

Re:Engineers CC - 16th hole - changes coming
« Reply #26 on: September 06, 2004, 07:01:16 PM »
Bill,

I personally think that firm greens rolling smooth at a good speed bring out the real character in a green.  In how you play approach shots, how you play shots around the green and how you play on the green.  Now, what is a good speed?  That is the question and that should largely be determined, in my opinion, as the speed at which the greens begin to show their true colors.  That can vary from course to course and from green to green.  

One reality, mowing greens at different heights and rolling them differently is not really a good idea nor are many clubs going to go to this.  Why should there not be variety in the difficulty of the greens?  Slowing some greens down would be an attempt towards making the greens play more similar, and I think variety is more important.  

Second reality, not every green is going to need slowing down and if in fact you do reduce green speed, the greens without slope, or as much, are going to significantly lose their subtle traits.  

Third reality, speed is more equal to smooth than slow is.  I must admit that I like putting on smooth greens as much as the next guy.  Putting on slower, less smooth greens may be considered by some to be a purer form of the game, but I would rather putt on smooth and quick.  Now, I don't consider slower greens to be a travesty, but the golfing public and private at large want smooth.

This said, have we taken greens too far because we can?  In some cases, yes!  At my home club, the greens are as smooth as you would ever want them to be, or really could be, rolling about 10 to 10.5.  11 brings a little more of the subtle traits in the greens out, but approaching 11.5, they are too fast.  I played the US Amateur last year at Oakmont (speaking of severe greens!) at over 13!  At that speed, the line may have been crossed between the best test of golf and a test of one's ability to not lose their mind.  

To convince a membership to slow greens down to maintain strategic variety, you must be armed with the knowledge of how slow to go and what impact that has on the strategic variety and challenge that has evolved with the quicker speeds.  In some cases, greens may be more interesting and present a more interesting challenge at the quicker speeds, which if you slow the greens down, may be lost.  It is a balancing act.  I would suggest that there may be more greens out there that can regain strategic variety by slowing down (without losing their character), then there are greens that needs areas massaged.  

As to rebuilding the green, what we often do, especially in the northeast, is not rebuild the entire green, but subtlely adjust the area in question.  In a very simplified version, this involves stripping the green, removing the seedbed, reshaping the subgrade, putting the seedbed back down and then relaying the sod.  We have done this when impacting less than 500 square feet of a 5,000 square foot green.  However, this can be really dangerous!  You must clearly be making a substantial impact to even consider this.  As Tom Doak pointed out, where do you stop?  We recently looked at one green that clearly had a section that was no longer working, but in order to correct that spot, we had to impact other spots - and so on, and so on.  The green still had plenty of variety so we chose to make very subtle changes outside of the green to allow for more variety in how you could play shots into and around the green.  

The older architects certainly discussed economy, especially during the depression when talk of anything else would have left them with no work.  However, I am quite confident that they would never trade strategic variety for economy, if and when they could.  

As for wild greens verses toned down greens and the likeness of challenge.  That is not necssarily comparing apples with apples.  However, if a green needs significant speed to be interesting or a challenge, it lacks real character.  Interest and challenge are not one in the same.  While I may use the word challenge, I think it is more important to create interest and variety, regardless of what level of challenge it may create.

To my knowledge, the current 7th at Engineers has never been worked on.  The current 8th used to be the 7th before they built a new 3rd hole and made the green for the old 3rd the 4th.  That green was first rebuilt in 1999 and again in 2000 by us.

I applogize for writing too much.  I got one of my undergraduate degrees was in Journalism and we had to write 1000 words a week for two years.  It stuck.  

My seven year old daughter is telling me she is bored, so I better go.  Thanks for the disucussion!  It is great fun.

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Engineers CC - 16th hole - changes coming
« Reply #27 on: September 06, 2004, 07:27:55 PM »
Tripp,
What is your experience in restoraton and in remodeling?

Thanks for participating.

TEPaul

Re:Engineers CC - 16th hole - changes coming
« Reply #28 on: September 06, 2004, 07:59:23 PM »
Tripp:

Interesting post--and even more interesting dilemma at Engineers with the greens.

My advice, if you and the club haven't done it already is to go at this problem from a couple of directions. The first thing to do is to find something I call the "reasonable maximum" greenspeed for that course's greens (all of them) right now before any recontouring is done to any more of the greens. Obviously you have to use the stimpmeter to determine what that is.

I've said on here I've never seen greens on any course anywhere that couldn't run 9 and generally even a little closer to 10. That obviously presupposed Engineer's doesn't have any greens that have a majority of their greenspace (a green whose total square footage) that's too sloped--eg something like 5 degrees or more (I call greens like that "anomalies" (to the rest of the greens on the course)). But there are a few of those around which are still managing at high speeds such as Merion's #12. There are some others like Torresdale's #3 where most of its greenspace is too sloped to maintain reasonable pinnability and playability at around 10 and the club had to dial down the degree of slope on that green. Apawamis's #4 (Eleanor's Teeth) was the same way and had to be softened.

So try to determine FIRST EXACTLY what that "reasonable maximum" speed is even if you have to smooth the greens out (for increased smoothness and trueness) with a frequent rolling program and to allow you to massage the cut height up some to get the same stimp reading and the same "playability" on the greens.  

As I said I've never really seen a course that can't handle between 9 and 10, and on greens like Engineers that ought to be all the fun, challenge and interest the members should require. I assume too that all the greens have been expanded back out to their original square footage at some point recently. That sure can help in this, even if it means some of that expansion areas aren't pinnable.

And if you and the club can find that EXACT "reasonable maximum" speed with the greens as they are and it's acceptable---the second bit of advice is to strongly encourage the club TO CAP THAT "REASONABLE MAXIMUM" speed for the rest of time even if that means putting it in their Bylaws. The last thing a course with greens like Engineers has needs to do is to be continuously chasing higher greenspeeds---and that happens all the time at clubs that don't really know or understand what their "reasonable maximum" speed is exactly. If the don't know that  unfortunately members and committees begin to automatically think about recontouring and softening etc. It may not be necessary.

We've done a huge amount of greenspeed and greenspeed "playability" analysis at my course this year (after taking our speeds up about a foot) and believe me we found a whole lot of interesting little solutions and workabilities. The idea of softening our greens has also become not an option!! If there's anything I can do for you information-wise that way just give a holler and come down and see us at Gulph Mills. It may help your project on those Engineer G.C. greens!

Another option is to take Tom MacWood's advice and to slow the greens down to the same speed they were when Strong built the golf course and the greens. That might be around 5 on the stimp. The membership may not go for that option but Tom MacWood is an architectural "preservationist" supreme and he doesn't care what a course's membership thinks!  ;)
« Last Edit: September 06, 2004, 08:17:09 PM by TEPaul »

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Engineers CC - 16th hole - changes coming
« Reply #29 on: September 06, 2004, 08:11:33 PM »
I think Tripp Davis is going to be a great addition to this board of GCA enthusiasts: he can type as fast as Tom Paul!  And has a lot of great ideas, understanding and enthusiasm.  Welcome aboard Tripp!

TEPaul

Re:Engineers CC - 16th hole - changes coming
« Reply #30 on: September 06, 2004, 08:22:39 PM »
"he can type as fast as Tom Paul!"

Just hold on a minute Bill!! He may have some highly sloped and contoured and fast greens at Engineers and a dilemma on his hands because of it but that doesn't mean he can type anywhere near as fast as Old Tom Paul! Old Tom's typing speed stimps somewhere around 140!!

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Engineers CC - 16th hole - changes coming
« Reply #31 on: September 06, 2004, 09:00:07 PM »
Yeah but for a guy without your seasoning he seems to be doing pretty well.  And I mean that in the nicest possible way!  ;)

Now what about this changing 500 sf of a 5000 sf green?  Isn't it the expert golfer's challenge to keep the approach shot in the correct location so the putt is possible?  If you miss you pay!  That's what shots like the approach into #2 Oakmont are all about, right?  Hit it left and deep and you pay.  Keep the shot below the pin and par is attainable, even the occasional birdie.

I guess the problem at Engineers -- and Pasatiempo, Oakmont, OClub #18, a lot of other places where the stimp is 12 and should be 8.5-9 -- is that some parts of those greens are simply unplayable no matter where and how the approach is played.

I completely agree that it doesn't work for some greens on a course to be 8.5 and others to be 12 depending on slope.  That's what the USGA tried to do at Southern Hills #18 and it didn't work out at all.  

T_MacWood

Re:Engineers CC - 16th hole - changes coming
« Reply #32 on: September 06, 2004, 10:14:06 PM »
I think TE Paul may have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2004, 10:22:14 PM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Re:Engineers CC - 16th hole - changes coming
« Reply #33 on: September 07, 2004, 10:26:05 AM »
"I think TE Paul may have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night."

I live in the Godamned Holiday Inn Express, MacWood, you numb-scull. But luckily I'm not the only one on here who thinks he knows it all!   ;)

TEPaul

Re:Engineers CC - 16th hole - changes coming
« Reply #34 on: September 07, 2004, 10:39:10 AM »
Bill McBride;

I believe what Tripp Davis may be trying to say about some of the greens at Engineers is today at semi-normal greenspeeds some greens may be down to too few pinnable spots on the one hand (that creates too much wear and stress on the few pinnable spots), and on the other hand the remainder of the greenspace on some of those greens may be such that it's gotten super hard to near impossible to filter the ball from those unpinnable spots to the pinnable spots with any degree of certainty!

This is a shame really and is very different from some of the greens at a course like NGLA that I call "greens within a green". The deal with that latter is there are a number of pinnable spots on those greens (generally very separated from one another) and the only real problem for the golfer is filtering the ball from a pinnable spot where the pin isn't to that pinnable spot where the pin is!

Some of Engineers greens may not be that way--sort of like Merion's #12 almost isn't now or Apawamis's #4 used to be. The way Apawamis's #4 used to be was the damnedest thing I ever saw. There was about a 15 foot wide swath all along the very front of the green that was pinnable and if your ball happened to be anywhere elsewhere on that green it was real hard to filter the ball to the pin position in that pinnable swath. Most of the time the ball just kept on truckin'!

In other words, pinnable spots of greenspace and the transition areas to them (which are almost always not even remotely close to pinnable) are hugely important and can be very nuancy to damn near impossible to two putt sometimes! The problem basically is the ball builds up way too much speed in those transition areas on the way to the pinnable spot! Most golfers and club members don't like that and so something has got to give!
« Last Edit: September 07, 2004, 10:48:35 AM by TEPaul »

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Engineers CC - 16th hole - changes coming
« Reply #35 on: September 07, 2004, 09:26:16 PM »
For the sake of this discussion, you might want to revisited Gil Hanse's interview at this website. He has some interesting thoughts on Engineers that do pertain to this subject.
jeffmingay.com

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Engineers CC - 16th hole - changes coming
« Reply #36 on: September 08, 2004, 09:43:20 AM »
Thanks for the tip, Jeff.

For everyone else:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/interviewhanse.html

I thought about cutting and pasting the relevant part (question #7), but the interview is such an enjoyable read I think everyone should just go read it all again!

Does Geoff have many photos of The Engineers Club in The Golden age...? I remember one of the 2 or 20 hole, but I can't remember if there are others.

link to Ran's excellent profile:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/engineers2.html

Tripp -

Thanks for contributing. I hope you understand that the skeptical nature of many of the participants of this site comes from a love of architecture and the perplexing steps taken by some clubs in the past.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re:Engineers CC - 16th hole - changes coming
« Reply #37 on: September 08, 2004, 10:03:46 AM »
"Second reality, not every green is going to need slowing down and if in fact you do reduce green speed, the greens without slope, or as much, are going to significantly lose their subtle traits."

Tripp, I don't want to be accused of second-guessing, but is this really the case at Engineers?  I don't remember many flat greens there ... most every one I saw would have worked well at 9 on the Stimpmeter.  Is 9 just unacceptable now?

TEPaul

Re:Engineers CC - 16th hole - changes coming
« Reply #38 on: September 08, 2004, 10:28:27 AM »
"Tripp, I don't want to be accused of second-guessing, but is this really the case at Engineers?  I don't remember many flat greens there ... most every one I saw would have worked well at 9 on the Stimpmeter.  Is 9 just unacceptable now?"

Tripp:

I think this is such a good point on TomD's part. It's a lot of what I was talking about above with the club doing some really comprehensive research right now in the form of DETERMING FIRST what some refer to as Engineer's (or any club's) "reasonable maximum" green speed. That just has to be determined first and a "reasonable maximum" in a stimpmeter context just doesn't translate from club to club and it doesn't have to for interesting, challenging and fun play on particular courses.

If you have some people at Engineers who say they just have to have greens that run stimp numbers like 11 or 12 or higher that's just nuts, they don't need that if Engineers greens are as sloped and contoured and character laden as people say they are. Going about this that way just needlessly sacrifices much of the character and interest of the greens of the course. Chasing a raw arbitrary stimp number that only works on courses that have none of the green slope, contour and character Engineers has is the most ass-backwards way of approaching this entire subject and problem.

What Tom Doak said about 9 is probably very true as a starting point at Engineers. At right around 9 on the stimp most sloped and contoured greens start to really pick up those nuancy little subtleties of movement in the greens through the performance of the ball on them that TomD mentioned.

As I said before I've never seen greens anywhere (except the very rare single green I called a course "anomalie") that can't handle at least 9 and probably closer to 10, and I've seen some of the world's most sloped and contoured and character laden greens. At that range some of the most character laden greens in the world can be and have all the interest and challenge and fun any membership would need, including Engineers.

I hope you can see your way clear to exhaust every single possible alternative before you go in there redoing any of those greens or even some section of any of them.

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Engineers CC - 16th hole - changes coming
« Reply #39 on: September 08, 2004, 02:25:31 PM »
TomP,
I think it's the maximum pinable % slope that determines the maximum maint. speed.
I saw a chart once of Oakmonts slope percentages.  They may have ranged from 3-15% (I don't remember exactly, but the person with the chart was using it as an example of how Oakmonts greens are no longer usable??).  And depending on how much pinable area is in the percent pinable range, determins if you have sufficient pinable area.  
I read Pete Dye says 2.25% is the correct answer (might have been tounge in cheek, or I might have read that here).  I've seen some modern greens that average between 1-2% - which doesn't suit my tastes.  I've worked with some in the 2-4% range with a modern bermuda grass like mini-verde, which had some nice contour (for pinable areas - much higher in transitions).  
So what are the %'s like at Engineers?
Cheers
« Last Edit: September 08, 2004, 02:27:04 PM by Mike_Nuzzo »
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Tripp_Davis

Re:Engineers CC - 16th hole - changes coming
« Reply #40 on: September 08, 2004, 10:47:11 PM »
I agree that some level of "scientific" analysis must be done when looking at green speeds and "pinnable" slopes.  But, you have to keep in mind that we can't just look at what happens once you are on the green.  You also have to look at approach shots, shots around the green and the overall strategy of the hole and possibly even how that hole fits into what could be considered the flow of the overall strategy of the course.  For instance, the 2nd green at Oakmont would not work if you were hitting 6 iron into it (at the speeds they maintain today).  The type of grass also has an impact.  For instance, a Tif Eagle green can act a lot differently than Poa.  

Pete Dye was proabably speaking of what we can usually get away with today.  We did a recent restoration at a Long Island club with a small membership and very fast, sloping greens where they simply wanted to restore the variety, but we generally were looking to restore pin locations within 3.5% to 5%.  If you build a new course with pin locations over 3%, you are likely to get strung up (speaking of which, they just removed the rope at Pete's Oak Tree (#16) to be "politically correct" - b.s.!!!).    

The comment about slowing speeds down as a whole on the course rendering some flatter greens to have less character was a general statement.  I should not have had in the context of what the situation at Engineers is like.  Yes, the greens at many courses would work at 9, but in my opinion and experience 9 is often about 1.0 feet on the slow side of what players consider good speed today.  That said, even that comment must be tempered with how much slope is in the green.  Tom D. is right, there is not a flat green at Engineers (maybe the "new" 3rd green).  But, achieving a specific green speed on a consistent basis is very difficult, as conditions that can be outside of anyone's control can cause the green speed to go one way or another.  While 9 may work, what the superintendent faces is that in a lot of cases 9 is the minimum the golfers would accept.  That means on average the greens are going to be greater than 9.  Tom - as for Engineers, there are a few greens that simply do not have variety even at 9.

I don't want the this discussion to tend towards the thought that we are going to blow up every green at Engineers.  We will be working on parts of the surface of 5 greens.  In many cases we are just working on a small area to recapture a pin location that has not worked for years.  On two greens, we are doing nothing in the green, but expanding the green to what we believe is the original size and/or working on slopes outside the green to make shots into or around the green more similar to what would have been possible years ago.  While the work we are doing has a lot to do with slopes and speeds, the work is not marginal - it is to recapture what has not worked for quite some time.

TePaul, if you have never seen a green that would not work at 9, you should take a further look.  I would agree that at 9 you start to see a green's nuances come out, in some cases, but not with others.  I have not worked at too many places where the club wants the greens to average between 11 and 12.  It is a huge leap from 9 to 12, even 11.  On slope, that difference is much more than 2 or 3 feet.  We design new courses to work best between 9.5 and 10.5, but we are aware of what happens when they get to 11.  We try to encourage our supers to stay around 10 to 10.5.  

One thing to keep in mind - this discussion centers around some scientific absolutes that really can't be applied to each situation.  

We begin any restoration/renovation by getting a very good understanding of not only slope analysis, but how shots into and around the green work and what impact the micro environment may have.  For instance, a green sitting up on a hill will get much quicker during the day.  I recently took stimp readings on a exposed green in the morning before mowing (9.1), after it was whipped and mowed (9.7), right after noon before a hand watering (10.2), right after a hand watering about 2:30 (10.2) and about 6 pm (11!!!).

I appreciate everyone's opinion.  I assure you we are not making changes anywhere to perpetuate work.  As I am sure Tom D. will tell you, we don't make a living with restoration work - we do it because we love it and that love would be tarnished if we consulted irresponsibly.  Our older courses are often places we can point to and I, and guys like Tom, want to see them best represent what is good, interesting and strategic in the game.

Is this as addictive as I think it is?  Should I stop smoking (writing) now before I get hooked?  

Thanks everyone.


George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Engineers CC - 16th hole - changes coming
« Reply #41 on: September 08, 2004, 10:53:29 PM »
Is this as addictive as I think it is?  Should I stop smoking (writing) now before I get hooked?  

Of course it is - take a look at our post numbers! :)

Thanks for the input. I hope it works out well.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Engineers CC - 16th hole - changes coming
« Reply #42 on: September 08, 2004, 11:04:28 PM »
If you build a new course with pin locations over 3%, you are likely to get strung up (speaking of which, they just removed the rope at Pete's Oak Tree (#16) to be "politically correct" - b.s.!!!).    
Both of those comments reallly suck (to hear).
Cheers

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/thegolfclub000212.html
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Neil Regan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Engineers CC - 16th hole - changes coming
« Reply #43 on: September 08, 2004, 11:14:05 PM »
Tripp says:
Quote
We are going to rebuild the 16th.  Today, only one-third of the green is being mown at green height because the other two-thirds is not capable of supporting a pin location (or keeping a ball from rolling off what would be green).  We are not going to redesign it and flatten it, we are going to restore the original design intent in the original form.  It is a great green, that has lost its variety.

Tripp,
  I suppose it could be because of the pictures, but the old green sit looks considerably less steep than the current one. Is this so ?
   You say you are not going to "flatten" it, but will restore the "original design intent in the original form". Do you mean that the actual grades will be restored, or that the green will putt along the same,but less steep, contours at, say, 10, like it used to putt at, say, 8 ?



From Ran's profile, the subject hole:

The current 16th putting surface is presently maintained at approximately half the size...



...of Strong's original design.

Grass speed  <>  Green Speed

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Engineers CC - 16th hole - changes coming
« Reply #44 on: September 08, 2004, 11:30:11 PM »
Neil,
That second picture is taken from a higher elevation....making it look flatter.
Now if you got rid of the cart path...

Trip,
What slopes are on 16?
What an awsome place.
Best of luck.

The picture in the profile of the 11th looks quite a bit like the new MPCC.

Cheers
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

TEPaul

Re:Engineers CC - 16th hole - changes coming
« Reply #45 on: September 08, 2004, 11:47:48 PM »
I'll tell you right now if that bottom black and white photo really is the original Strong green and the top photo is that original Strong green in just how it's evolved in all these decades either I've gone half blind or I'm crazy. Someone, at some point between that old black and white and that photo above it came in and did a lot of green and particularly green surround alteration. It's not the angle of the photographs, those two greens and surroundings aren't even close. Check out the high shoulder coming into the green on the left. Not even remotely there in the black and white. Check out the entire right side in new photo---it's a ton more sloped than the old strong green--you can even see that the height of the entire bank on the right is way more than it is in the top photo. Somebody between that old black and white photo and that top photo did a big alteration not so much to the green surface but really did a job on the surrounding area. Or else something in some natural physical way happened to that green at some point! That can't be the same green and green-end----it's not even close, in my opinion. Looks like some research ought to be done. It's hard to say just looking at that old greenspace in that black and white but it looks to me like all that space would accomodate a pretty good "reasonable maximum" green speed today!
« Last Edit: September 08, 2004, 11:49:48 PM by TEPaul »

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Engineers CC - 16th hole - changes coming
« Reply #46 on: September 09, 2004, 12:15:10 AM »
Tom,
Looking at the 16th fairway...
there are several vantage points for which to take a picture, and get a significantly different perspective.  Ran takes his pictures to accentuate the elevation changes, not the glamour shot of the older one.  I think they were also taken from a different approach angle.
On the right side, the addition of the cart path necessitated a change to the side bank.  It's hard for me to tell if the corner, where the ladder was removed, was also modified...I don't think it was...much.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=897
Cheers
« Last Edit: September 09, 2004, 12:17:07 AM by Mike_Nuzzo »
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

TEPaul

Re:Engineers CC - 16th hole - changes coming
« Reply #47 on: September 09, 2004, 05:31:13 PM »
"We are going to rebuild the 16th.  Today, only one-third of the green is being mown at green height because the other two-thirds is not capable of supporting a pin location (or keeping a ball from rolling off what would be green).  We are not going to redesign it and flatten it, we are going to restore the original design intent in the original form."

Tripp:

After reading that statement of yours and looking closely at the black and white compared to the photo above it of the green today and trying to figure out what's different between the two, would you mind speaking about some of the details of exactly how you're going to rebuild and restore the green to that black and white photo (if that's what you're going back to) and not redesign it?

From what I can tell it looks like you'll need to bring the entire right side and the back up to the height it once was, including maybe some in the front too. It looks to me like at some point all (or most of) the surrounding space that used to be greenspace was dropped down or made more slopped for some reason. If you brought everythng back up to the way it appears in that black and white couldn't you just tie back in the unused greenspace to the original greenspace still used as green and basically return it all to what that black and white shows? And once all that was done the surrounding now unused previous greenspace could be useable or pinnable again!
« Last Edit: September 09, 2004, 05:33:20 PM by TEPaul »

Tripp_Davis

Re:Engineers CC - 16th hole - changes coming
« Reply #48 on: September 09, 2004, 10:07:44 PM »
I have studied the old photos of this hole and the old aerial circa '23.  We did not have old plans - burned with the clubhouse.  The black and white may look at little different, especially with the ridge that comes into the back left.  But, if you look close, shadows in the black and white hide the ridge and because the angle is a little different, it does not seem as pronouned.  

Even if an original green has never been "touched" by a bulldozer, it still goes through considerable change.  Many superintendents will topdress very regularly, while almost all topdress a minimum of two times a year.  When mowing, even if clippings are basically collected, there are organic contributions made to the surface.  Over 90 years, that will change contours.

Players of almost every ability are hitting short irons into this green.  The original green had four "areas".  There was a back left - higher - section, a lower left, a slightly higher front right, and back right that is slightly higher than the front right.  The main change to the green complex has been in the front bunkers and the addition of the cart path (bad!).  

The design intent with this restoration is to restore the bunkering, remove the path and restore the four "areas" so that they are playable at modern green speeds that are acceptable for the membership (10 to 11).


Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Engineers CC - 16th hole - changes coming
« Reply #49 on: September 09, 2004, 10:33:30 PM »
Tripp,

Please, as I know you will, take this comment with a grain of salt... "restore" should be in quotations rather than "areas".

In other words, it sounds like you're going to "restore" those areas on that green (ie. renovate) so they are playable at modern green speeds.

That's NOT restoration. That's renovation. And this type of work you're doing at Engineers, referred to as "restoration", is what causes the term "restoration" to be misinterpreted. Big time. Big time.
jeffmingay.com

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back