I had a great time and a perfect great day with the boys from Minnesota (where it snowed the next day). I agree that we may have picked the wrong tees, given the wet conditions, but that was my fault (my average driving distance varies somewhat from my imagined driving distance, despite tons of empirical data and experience).
I am glad Jason started this thread, although I realize that few people will have seen the course yet. The greens are the most interesting change and probably the most discussed among the members, partly because there are no drawings or old photos to rely on to see what was really there back in Ross's day. Ron based most of his work on some aerial photos that were discovered in the county archives. So, he really did view this project as a "restoration". However, you cannot discern green contours from a grainy 70 year old photo. On that, he relied on his knowledge of what Ross "probably would have done."
The new greens do make the course more interesting and more fun (in my opinion), but often a lot more difficult too. I am not enough of a Ross expert to opine about how true they are to his original work. However, here are some quotes about the greens from Mr. Prichard. At least this gives some sense of how he approached the project. I hope this spurs on the discussion. I may have some photos, but I will have to post them later.
Ron Prichard on classic architects and greens
"In particular, the one truth was that they all built interesting and challenging putting surfaces. To me that’s sort of the cornerstone of really good golf architecture. Showing some great creativity... And so a problem we run into today is when we continue to improve turf grasses, species, so that we can mow them down to a tenth of an inch and less, we begin to establish a condition where we now have to start altering the architecture of some of the great old greens. So we moved a step forward, according to agronomists, or many steps forward, and we’re moving leaps backward in golf course design.
With the new golf courses today, you watch tournament play and guys are putting balls from 50 and 60 feet away and there’s a three inch break. You never find that on a great old golf course. Never...Think about the 18th hole at Augusta. Sometimes the best way to putt the ball is uphill and hope it goes in the hole when it comes back downhill past you. There are many things that have been lost in golf architecture, and some of these things I hope to write a book about myself. But that’s certainly one of the cornerstones: that a lot of architects today don’t know how to design good putting surfaces."
On Ross's approach and drainage
"The first green is a good place to understand how Ross approached the design of a putting surface. If a player was approaching with a high lofted club, Ross would insist they place this second shot close to the pin to have any chance at sinking the initial putt. When working on the contours of a putting surface, an architect is always studying where you take the
water off the green. From a playing standpoint, this is a critical consideration in determining which way a putt will bend. Because of these drainage requirements, it predisposes the architect to separate different sections of the putting surfaces from other portions so you capture water and take it north, south, east or west.
One of the things that Ross did which architects rarely do today is take water from the putting surface into a bunker. I’m not at all reluctant to do that, because Ross did it. If the bunker is designed to drain properly, then you can drain a portion of the putting surface into the bunker itself.
Another question is how to separate one portion of a green from another. You do this with a rollover or some sort of a hollow or a ridge. When you create these ridges and hollows and rollovers, you’re addressing the need to take water off the green, but you’re also establishing interesting surface character. In Ross’s day, he relied primarily on surface drainage. Today, a great deal of effort goes into taking water out from beneath the putting surface itself. We use rather porous root zone or seedbed mixture, blended soils that will allow the water to penetrate the green. Consequently, our reliance upon surface draining is not as critical today."
On what he did at Charlotte
"The secondary impact is going to be the character of the putting surfaces, which in some cases are pretty darn difficult. There are no easy two putts unless you’re within 20-25-30 feet maybe at the most. You’re not going to be knocking in any 60 or 70 footers on any green on the golf course. There’s never going to be a 70 foot putt made without glaring luck. There are double and triple breaks.
Ross envisioned golf as two games in one anyway. One game was getting from tee to putting
surface and the next one was the game of trying to get the ball in the hole when you’re on the
putting surface. That’s going to be the scary part. My point of view right now is that the greens are going to be baffling to some people and frustrating to some people, but it’s a great golf course now."
Hope that is of interest to people.