Golf Digest article on Ross Pinehurst #2 Greens

[cary lichtenstein]

Very interesting article on the greens at Pinehurst number 2 in Golf Digest.

Basically it says that the Greens on #2 are not what Ross built or intended, that they changed significantly ofver the years with layers and layers of sand and became more and more upside down sauers.

It will be interesting to watch the US Open this year, and see how the telecasters rave about the greens and the genius of Donald Ross in light of this.

[Tyler Kearns]

Cary,

Over the course of many decades, I think this type of thing is inevitable. During regular top-dressing, when the sand is brushed into the green, it will accumulate more quickly in the low points on the green surface - leading to the softening of internal green contours and a more crowned green.

TK

[Michael Plunkett]

Cary,

Over the course of many decades, I think this type of thing is inevitable. During regular top-dressing, when the sand is brushed into the green, it will accumulate more quickly in the low points on the green surface - leading to the softening of internal green contours and a more crowned green.

TK

Living in a world of "Spin Doctoring," I thought it was interesting how the article protected Ross by claiming how wonderfully the greens at Pinehurst #2 has kept pace with technology and are properly protected the way Donald wanted.  

If the greens are the single most important feature of #2 and they are not what Ross designed- is it really a Ross course?

[cary lichtenstein]

Tyler:

Interestingly, the article posts out that the sand was continually placed on top of the greens prior to the time when greens were aerified.

Mike:

The article concludes with how wonderful the greens are, etc., but the conclusion is contrary to the facts in the article that basically say just what you just said, these are not Ross greens anymore.

[Mike_Cirba]

Why has this not happened to every course that is over 50 years old?

Shouldn't the world be populated by a zillion Pinehurst-like domed greens?

[JESII]

I only skimmed the article, but didn't it mention something about a process in which they actually shaved off the edges of the greens to promote the "upside down saucer effect" in place today. I'm not referring to the grass height around the green, I am referring to the actual contour. There was an illustration to this effect.

The article seemed to focus on three specific points in time and illustrate any differences and I thought the middle time slot (maybe 1965 or 70?) demonstrated an actual removal of a hard angled edge around all of the greens (that was the result of one foot of top dress build up). This would effectively reduce the playable green footage in favor of producing the current fall off characteristic.

[Tyler Kearns]

Mike,

I think Pinehurst's greens were likely somwhat cowned to begin with, and the top-dressing applications over the years have accentuated this feature. It is obviously a very slow and gradual change.

TK

[RJ_Daley]

From the time Ross first designed and had overseen its construction, through the years of experimentation on how to keep turf growing at all on the greens, through the many years Ross lived there and constantly is reported to tweak and collaborate with Ellis Maples on maintenence meld and adding other courses, I must believe that Ross was fully aware of the concept of greens build-up and long term effects.  I have to believe that Ross was smart enough to project this on-going result into the future and what tweaking they did in his many years there was responsive to the build-up that had already occured.  And, I'd be interested to know from those of you scholars that pour over the Tufts library material whether Ross left any commentaries on how to handle this evolution for the future.  

I don't have time now to sift through my Ross book, "Golf Has Never Failed Me".  But, perhaps he spoke of the long term green build up in there, as well.

I know that his main idea was to test the long iron approaches to the greens at #2 so that the exacting and shot shaping player would be tested to find just the right angle and lay the ball near the pin where the slightly off line or short or long player would be channelled away form pins to hollows and areas that would make the up and down or two putt highly difficult.  So, with green build up over his own years, Ross must have taken this into account in his constant tweaking of #2, I'd have to think.

[Mike_Cirba]

I still don't understand why this hasn't happened on every course over 50 years old...what am I missing?

[George Pazin]

Heck, Mike, I'd settle for even one other example.

[tomgoutman]

Mike:
Green features get exagerated over time because of the build up of sand. Pinehurst's greens were somewhat crowned to begin with and have become more so over the years. Another Ross course that I play regularly, Torresdale, has experienced the same thing, although the greens were not and are not now crowned. The sand build up is most pronounced in the areas of the greens next to sand bunkers from which sand is splashed onto the greens on a daily basis. The result is some very severe and virtually unplayable areas on the perimeters of the greens.

[Mike_Cirba]

I'm not buying this one.

Just as topdressing introduces sand onto the surface, other processes like rain runoff remove it.  

Tom Goutman's example of sand "splashing" from a frequently used bunker is something we've all seen, such as 8 & 13 at Merion, but this whole idea that the green is going to turn into an upside down cake over the years due to maintenance doesn't make any sense at all.

I never bought it when Pete Dye first said it about Pinehurst, I never bought it when Brad Klein concurred, and I don't buy it with Ron Whitten weighing in.

If it's true, then every green over 50 years old should be several feet higher than when originally constructed, albeit in their same general shape.

Give me a break.

[Mark_Fine]

Guys,
The edges were shaved off.  That is what made the impact of top dressing and adding soil to the greens so pronounced.  As most of you know, this is not new news and has been known for quite some time.  I always laugh when people tell me Ross was known for his "crowned greens" - nonsense!

Also, his original bunkers at #2 were flashed and some people still think all Ross did were flat bottom grass faced bunkers - nonsense as well!
Mark

[Tyler Kearns]

Just as topdressing introduces sand onto the surface, other processes like rain runoff remove it.  

Mike,

That water will naturally travel to the lowest points on the green, and when it percolates into the soil, it will deposit the sand.

I'll be honest, I do not know what the greens at Pinehurst looked like when Ross died, and can therefore not compare them with what exists today. I'm speculating as to the exaggerated crown effect that others have commented on. I can't imagine such a process would yield visible results over the course of 50 years, and if that is actually the case, then some other practice has led to the altered contours at Pinehurst #2. (As Mark Fine just told us)

TK

[Mike_Cirba]

Guys,
The edges were shaved off.  That is what made the impact of top dressing and adding soil to the greens so pronounced.  As most of you know, this is not new news and has been known for quite some time.  I always laugh when people tell me Ross was known for his "crowned greens" - nonsense!

Also, his original bunkers at #2 were flashed and some people still think all Ross did were flat bottom grass faced bunkers - nonsense as well!
Mark

Mark,

What does it mean the "edges were shaved off"?  Are you saying that someone dug trenches around the edge of each green?  That's the only thing I can imagine that would account for the green seemingly being "raised" several feet?!

Your second statement is very true and a point I've tried to make repeatedly.  The bottom line is that there was NO stereotypical Ross bunker style, and a quick perusal of the photos and test of "Golf Has Never Failed Me" makes this abundantly clear.

[Tyler Kearns]

The bottom line is that there was NO stereotypical Ross bunker style, and a quick perusal of the photos and test of "Golf Has Never Failed Me" makes this abundantly clear.

I believe Tom Macwood's "Architectural Quiz" from a few months ago revealed this fact very clearly. It probably surprised most GCA readers, and went a long way towards dismantling a Ross stereotype.

TK  

[Mike_Cirba]

Tyler,

Which begs the question....

Can anyone name a restoration effort on any Ross course where the bunkers weren't rebuilt with the stereotypical shallow sand bottoms and grass faces?

Even Seminole did it.

[Pete Lavallee]

MIke,

I would post a link, but Golf Digest does not have it up on their web site yet. To paraphrase the atricle, there was a side by side photo of the 4th green, clearly showing a lower profile in the black and white image. The article indicated that the original cross structue of #2's greens was a right side up plate (slightly raised at the edges). Years off top dressing led to a new cross section, an inverted pie plate, with steep edges. The article states that these were shaved off mechanically, but doesn't provide any hard data to support exactly who performed this operation. If indeed the edges were shaved the article proposes that this severly reduced the square footage of the green surfaces. When the greens were changed to bent grass the edges were then pulled out past the original perimeter to allow more pin positions. It all sounds quite plausable; especially if you suscribe to the theory that #2 was the only common bermuda course that top dressed that heavily to keep their affluent northern guests, who were used to putting on bent greens, happy.

[Mike_Cirba]

Pete,

What's the date of the original 4th green picture?  Does it say?

[Pete Lavallee]

Mike,

I believe it was from the late 40's; I'll confirm this when I can check the article tonight.

[JESII]

I tend to agree with Mike C on this. He asked a good question early in this thread that I don't believe has been answered; "why has this not happened on every course that is over 50 years old?".

I don't think the example of the build up of bunker edges due to normal sand deposits carries any weight in this discussion. Unless Pinehurst has/had a top-dressing program aimed at this particular result, that is not a viable explanation to me.

Is there any chance the green surrounds have changed in contour to allow for the appearance of a raised green? Or is there surveyor's evidence that the actual green surfaces are one foot higher than 60 or 70 years ago?

[Mark Brown]

To any doubters GD is right. Pete Dye witnessed the process of top dressing and how it made the greens crowned in person.

[Pete Lavallee]

Mike,

The black and white photo was from 1935, shortly after the green was converted from sand to grass. The major points the article brings up:

*  The sand greens were converted to grass freehand by Ross and  Frank Maples so no diagrams exist at the Tufts Archives, although there are some photos.

*  Aeration  technology wasn't developed until 1949, and for his last 3 years, records show Frank Maples applied 1/4 inch of sand per month during fall and winter; adding up to over an inch per year.

*  No record of the "bulldozer shaving" exists, but they speculate it occured in 1977 when #2 transitioned from the Tufts family to Club Corp.

*  Although Nicklaus didn't extend the green perimeters in a 1986 green rebuild, Rees Jones followed a set of 1962 drawings to extend their edges when he added the G-2 bent.

*  Ross's original contouring was designed to repel ground shots, and since the current versions function better against the modern ariel game, there is no need for a restoration.

[George Pazin]

Pardon me for not remembering everyone's professions, but is anyone commenting on this thread a Superintendent who can speak with authority as to the build up effects of topdressing? Have any long term studies been done?

These are honest questions, not an attempt to belittle or demean anyone. My understanding of topdressing is obviously very limited.

I have the utmost respect for Pete Dye as a designer, but unless he spent an extended number of years at Pinehurst, I don't think he can speak with final authority on what happened.

[Mike_Cirba]

I was emailed by someone very knowledgable and intimately familiar about Pinehurst and Ross (who shall remain nameless unless that person asks to be identified).

"First, I visited Pinehurst in the 1970,s with the purpose of viewing these
putting surfaces.  They should not be considered "typical of Ross", for they were, and to
a signifigant degree still are, quite probably the zenith of his work. I can name several other
Ross courses where as a result of his particular attention, the putting surfaces are except-
ional. That's for another time. No other Ross course received as much attention from the
great man as this second course at Pinehurst, and that also is another topic. My point is
however, to the best of my early memories, and of course I,ve visited many times since;
the surfaces I saw as a young man are quite similar to the present surfaces. [I have not
seen them since the Open won by Payne Stewart - and do not know what the effects of Rees
Jones efforts are. However  knowing Rees, I believe he respected Ross' surfaces.]  I know
of two situations which may have had some impact:
 
                                               a. In the late 70's, the Diamondhead Corporation owned
Pinehurst. From my recollection, they converted the Bermuda turf, to bentgrass. I was at
the course a few years later, and  although I heard they had altered the surface character; I
did not really see any  dramatic changes.
 
                                                b. I heard that prior to the last Open, during his prepara-
tion of the golf course, Ree removed some of the accumulated topdressing. This if very
carefully done should not have / would not have any consequence on the turf quality since
the late 70's work involved carefully coring of the soils which supported putting surface turf
,  and replacing this material with blended sand.
 
                             So then' my sense of things is that the surfaces which were built by
Ross prior to his leaving us in 1948, are the present surfaces. Someone may have closer knowledge.
 
                               The second response I have to the Ron Whitten article, and I only
raced through it at the aiport yesterday, is that I,ve never yet run across an accumulation
of 12" of topdressing.  I watch this with extreme care, for I have frequently heard "stories"
such as this on in Golf Digest. What I normally run into, and this is after several decades
of top dressing on some very fine old courses, is an accumulation of in the vicinity of
three and a half inches [3 1/2"].  I,m not sure why this is all I repeatedly find, but that's
the extent of it."

Personally, I'd be interested to know if the application of half an inch of sand by Maples was grossly different than other's practices at the same time?