Ross Mounding

[Steve Sayers]

Below are photos of mounds behind the 13th green at LuLu (Ross c. 1915).  We are looking at reproducing similar mounds elsewhere on the course as recommended in the master plan developed by Ron Forse.  We are considering taking on this part of the master plan project in-house.  Is such an undertaking better left to a qualified contractor?  Has anyone had experience with such an in-house project and what were the results?

 

[John_Lovito]

Steve,

We just had similar mounding restored at Plainfield on three holes.  All of the work was done in house and came out quite nicely.  I would estimate construction time took about 4 weeks.

[Dave_Miller]

Steve:

We had similar success in our restoration at CRCC in the mounding but we used an outside contractor to do the shaping and the work.  Michael Drake did the work and did a terrific job in working from old photos, the original plans and Ron Prichard's drawings.

It is hard to say if In-House is better.  It would probably depend on the expertise of the Super and his staff.  At any rate your Super is going to have to be intimately involved in this process regardless.

If your looking for an outside shaper/contractor, Michael Drake is very good.  Don't know if he works outside New England or not.

Best,
Dave

[TEPaul]

Steve:

It shouldn't be too hard to do inhouse but you should just take some very comprehensive photos of Ross mounds you might want to reproduce. Even measure the dimensions, height, width of base etc, just as were on some of the old "construction instructions" from some of the older architects. Generally problems arise when the heights are too much in relation to the width of the base. I think I know where you want to put some and I think they would work very well there.

[Steve Sayers]

Tom:

Yes, you do know where the mounding is going (16 short right of the green and 3 right of the green).  Ron Forse has also included mounding between 8 and 11, but that will have to wait until some tree removal is done.

I agree that with proper research, time and effort we should be able to complete the project in-house – especially when we have some great mounds behind 13 to study.  In addition, we will look to Ron for his guidance (construction documents) if we are to pursue this in-house.

My thoughts on how to capture the proper look of interconnected mounds is to place stakes in the ground at varying height between 2 and 5 feet.  Then “string out” from the top of the stake in several directions to a base similar to what is found behind 13.  The string would overlap in points creating the interconnected mounds.  Fill would be use to build to the level of the strings.  Any other thoughts are appreciated.

[TEPaul]

Steve:

Just my personal opinion but at LuLu you should be very careful about what you reproduce in the vein of things like mounds. You should not forget how early your course is in Ross's career and try to very much stay in character with the look of that very early time in his career!

I looked long and hard at that mounding behind #13! It's not ordinary Ross at all, it's very rudimentary, extremely old fashioned and you should treat that for what it is--an architectural feature of real interest of an early time and era.

There're probably plenty of other areas and features of LuLu that should be treated the same way. That's much of the interest and heritage of your course and I sure hope the members, committees, Ron, whomever, understand that fact. Things like that could be LuLu's true asset.

What you should do is track some of Ross's other courses of that era and study some of their features. Massachusetts maybe a place to look. Check with Dave Miller or Ed Baker of Charles River or maybe Essex or Salem or some of the really early Ross courses. Maybe get Ron to get in touch with Brad Klein, Gil, Ron Prichard or Brian Silva.

The evolution of Ross's career and the alterations of his style of architecture is a whole separate study, in my opinion. Even my course with some of its square greens with the corner "flare-outs" are really interesting, and I'm so glad they're now being restored.

PS:

On #15, I think you have a very interesting decision to make--basically some really interesting evolutionary buildup vs original bunkering and green restoration. I'd prefer you stick with the evolution but I don't think you could go wrong either way, except for with today's game there's no question in my mind that the evolution is the best for today's game with that hole! As it is it's such a good green-end and front bunker situation!