[Ed_Baker]

During our restoration project we relied heavily on photographs from different eras as well as the original Ross drawings to try and determine what the original green footprints were.

In the end it was really a consensus of Ron Prichard's analysis of the the reference materials and his experience with Ross restorations, and what the committee could see for themselves from the photos that determined the green expansions.

I would agree with Mike Young that the finished product in this area of restoration will end up an educated guess with a healthy dose of common sense.

We have many more pin posistions now and more of the false fronts and humps and bumps wreak havoc on timid chips.

[Mark_Fine]

Guys - Here is a quote from Flynn made in June of 1927:

“The plans first submitted by an architect should cover what might be well termed the framework of the course, but should be flexible in the matter of pits and bunkers.  Those around the greens and certain traps just off the fairways may be fairly well determined in advance, but the location of the others can be determined better after the course has been completed and played on for a time.  

In this connection it would be well for a club to retain its architect in an advisory capacity for a year or so after the actual work of construction has been finished.  He will then be able to better determine the definite location of a complete bunkering system for the course and will be able to advise in the treatment of the course in preparing it for play."

Doesn't this clearly imply that the architect (in this case Flynn) was tinkering with the golf course as it was built and afterwards as well!  Furthermore, Flynn was great at making his bunkering tie in with existing contours so if he was going to add and/or change bunkering, a significant area of disturbance would/could be taking place in fairways and around greens as he completed the "bunkering system".  

I've always said that having original drawings and an aerial of a Flynn course on "opening day" is helpful but not nearly as good as having an aerial taken a few years after it has been opened for play.  By that time, you will have most of Flynn's changes in place and know better what he intended for the finished product.    

Mark

[wsmorrison]

Fortunately, nearly all aerial photographs available of Flynn courses are from a period of a few to many years afterward.  The Hagley aerials are the best quality to do the kind of analysis you refer to.  I don't know of any opening day aerials.  Few are within a few years of opening...mostly those later in his career.  The aerials are often not the most significant determinant of what was built.  Some are not clear enough, some are obliques, and some greens are obscured by trees and other features.  

The combination of aerials, drawings and field research (on ground and below ground) is needed to make accurate analyses.  In a number of examples, we have serial drawings that show the changes over time.  The Cascades and Merion East are great examples of how things changed over time.  This can be compared to serial photographs to determine whether what was drawn was built.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
I agree, the Hagley aerials are good, but they don't cover everything.  There are many other good sources out their as you know.  The National Archives have some awesome coverage if you know where to look.  

Of course a combination of all those things is needed to figure out what was built.  But I guess that is the point isn't it?  In Flynn's own writing he states his drawings are "a framework of the course" and the architect (him) should be retained to complete and fine tune it after it is built.  

Do you have an example of a Flynn drawing that he provided to his client that showed what he actually built (not what he was planning to build)?  That is something I would find interesting as you could compare it to what his conceptual (before construction) drawings looked like.
Mark

[wsmorrison]

I have the best National Archives researcher on the planet helping out our book project.  I did not mean to slight that collection or his efforts.  The Hagley photographs are exceptional because they were meant to photograph the golf course as opposed to National Archives photographs that covered nearly the entire USA and were not dedicated to photographing the golf course.  But of course, it is an outstanding resource and we would know so much less if we didn't have Craig and his findings on hand.

We don't really have any drawings that Flynn did specifically to show what was built.  What we do have are subsequent drawings that were made when changes were being made over time that shows what was there and what was to be changed.  The Merion drawings are outstanding in this regard.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
I know Craig is tremendous!  If I ever can't find something myself, he would be the first guy I'd contact.  I've been lucky to find an inside person who jumps through hoops for me.  Every exposure is checked to verify that the coverage I need is there before I order the cans.  This has saved me literally thousands of dollars I'm sure.  

As far as the as built drawings, that is what I figured as I've never been able to find any as well.  Few if any architects did them.  
Mark

[Tom_Doak]

Wayne:

I'm not sure I understand the point of your original question, except if it was a set-up so you could then insist that Flynn was smarter than all of us put together.

He may well have drawn those wiggly green perimeter lines to mean literally where he wanted the wiggles; or he may have drawn them to indicate the nature of what he wanted, i.e. not a smooth line.  And he may have been much more accurate than other designers today or back then, although I believe there is also some "finding what you want to find" occurring there.

I'm with Mike and Ian ... my instructions stay pretty simple until a green is half built and I can massage it appropriately.  I'm not good enough to visualize every detail in 3-D and how it fits into the background, and I can vouch for the fact that neither are most other modern architects -- the ones who insist they are good at it either just don't care how it fits in with the surrounds, or else they are the biggest liars of the bunch!

Maybe Flynn was better; it was easier to do then because nothing else around the green complex was going to change.  But maybe you are also reading a bit too much into those curves.  I can find you courses where we've done multiple plans and I keep refining the drawing trying to make it look the way I'm thinking it should; but once we're out in the field I don't look at the drawings, I just try to make it fit by eye.

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

I don't know how anybody can conclude that I was setting anything up to insist Flynn was smarter than you or any other golf course architect.  In a sense I was pointing out the opposite that these guys may have been designing greens that could not be maintained as intended over long periods of time.  It beats me why some modern architects believe that I am championing some dead guy over them.  It is much more an artifact of observations made and materials on hand that relate to Flynn because that is whom I am studying.

I was giving an example of a design that had, on paper, a complex outline and built that way which is now a simplified oval with significant lost green space and pin positions.  I used the Flynn drawing because that is what I have and that is all.  Nothing nefarious need be implied as none was intended.

There is photographic evidence and on-site evidence that there was at least a representative sample of greens that were built as drawn.  Squiggly lines were not meant to add flourish and sway green committees.  At least there is no evidence that supports such a notion.  Sure, not all greens were built exactly as drawn (and I'm sure not all the drawings we have may be the final iterations) and others were changed shortly thereafter.  But the fact is, we have 1916, 1924, 1930 and 1934 drawings of Merion East and these subsequent drawings show what was there.  Same with the Cascades, Rolling Green and was once true of Shinnecock and others.

I appreciate your methods differ and are more in line with those of Ian and Mike Young.  That is not at all a surprise since so much is different now and Flynn's approach seemed radically different even in his time.

You say maybe Flynn was better as you think I may be implying.  I don't necessarily feel that way.  I think you were far better at Atlantic City for instance.  It was vastly improved by your efforts.  But that is not what I'm getting at.  I don't know how it got interpreted that way.  I think in his era where it was hard to make changes given the equipment of the day, it was probably a preferred method (for his time) to design on paper rather than redesign on the ground.

My question remains, if Flynn built as he drew (and there is a load of evidence that he did), what can be done to restore back to that (I think the advantages for classic courses to defend themselves if done are obvious) and maintain them as such?  Or are they too difficult to maintain from a cost/benefit analysis?  That's all I want to know.  Honest.  I am not making any judgements or comparisons.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
Restoring greenspace is not that difficult.  It takes some work and analysis as stated in earlier posts, and there are numerous ways to do the expansion, but it's not that tough.  The bigger challenge is maintaining it once restored.  But even then, if kept watch on by the super, it's not that big a deal.  

Here is an example of an old Ross green (believe it or not) that is in dire need of expansion.  I don't think he EVER designed a perfectly round green in his life.  The work to expand this one is pretty straight forward.  It would then be up to the course to keep it that way.
 

[Jimbo]

I wonder if that perimeter swale was original?  It sure is ugly.  (Looks like a superintendent designed the green!) I know certain architects hate them.  I think they are generally necessary but can be done better than the one in the photo.

You'd  expand this front left a little, back left a little, front right alot?  It would be nice to tie in a portion(s) of that hill to the surface.  Maybe put drains in periodically to break up the uniformity of the swale?

[wsmorrison]

Mark,

It certainly isn't rocket science, but don't you think greens that have been top-dressed for a number of years have a different soil structure than the neglected surrounds that used to be green?  So the contours are different and the soil mixtures are different.  How long does it take to bring the two (old and reclaimed) green areas into harmony?

That is one neglected green.  Ross's early greens had very identifiable falloffs.  Greens that are blended into the surrounds more carefully with drawn out lines are a bit harder to detect, but not with soil probes.  

Thanks!

[paul cowley]

We have 18 greens just like the one pictured at my current course, Brunswick CC, that probably average under 3,000 sq'.
I had always assumed it was a Ross mail-in after a whistle stop until the original, very detailed greens plans, showed up a few years ago and after exploration it was apparent that they had increased in height by up to 18" or so, but had shrunk by 40% and had become domed in the process....our current plans are to excavate to the original push-up contours and probably then rebuild and replicate the  new greens 12" above with greens mix, making small adjustments for tie-ins outside the green.....areas outside the green had risen as well but not as dramatically.
They had been adding to the green at least a 1/4" per year for at least 60 yrs.....the plans show some very interesting greens ...it should be interesting to see if they were actually built.

[Mark_Fine]

Jimbo,
As you can easily see, a lot of runoff comes from the hillside on that hole.  That swale redirects much of it away from and around the green.  That swale is not the most attractive but a lot of architects such as Ross (Flynn was very efficient with swales around greens as well) used them.  It won't look as bad when the green is fully expanded.  The green will almost double in size.  

Wayne,
Soil probes will give you a good idea of the history of topdressing, etc.  Generally the superintendent will specify the greens mix to expand the putting surfaces.  Soil labs will help match it to the current putting surface rootzone mix as best as possible.  At Cherry Hills for example, Mike wants a minimum compacted depth of eight inches (8”) of his approved greens mix in the expanded areas that require coring.  These expanded areas will be sodded from a turf nursery Mike has estabished on site to match the existing grass as best we can.  When the work is finished, it will be less than one playing season to have everything back in harmony.  
Mark  

[Mark_Fine]

Paul,
Rebuilding is expensive as you well know.  You have quite a project ahead of you going down that route.  As you know, it is a fallacy that Ross built domed greens.  It is surprising how many people think that is a Ross trademark.  Same goes for round greens.  If anything, Ross greens were more square than circles that's for sure.  Good luck with your project!
Mark

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()