News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
I had the great pleasure of playing the recently restored/renovated Charlotte Country Club with Art Roselle.  The club has a fabulous feel about it, with a grand old clubhouse and a culture of encouraging children to play golf. 

We played it at about 6700 yards and it was more than we could handle with rusty winter swings and soft ground.  The attached review from the Ross Society indicates it can be stretched to around 7300 yards for tournament play.

 http://www.donaldrosssociety.org/MEMBERS/Charlotte%20Country%20Club.htm

The course reopened in December after extensive renovation by Ron Prichard.  Beyond the usual tree removal, fairway widening, bunker renovation and replacement of bunkers lost over time, the club replaced all 18 greens.  The greens present an enjoyable challenge and Prichard took some admirable chances with them.

Nonetheless, I was surprised at the greens.  They were more angular in shape than I expected and had difficult signifcant internal contours that often ran counter to the general contour of the green.  For example, a back portion of the green on 2 that funnelled balls off the back of the green.

Although I am aware of Pinehurst No. 2, I have never played a Ross course with similar greens.  Usually they have been more oval in shape, sloped back to front and often from one side to the other.  I expected the greens at Charlotte to be similar to those at Southern Pines.

For those that know, are the Charlotte greens a reasonable interpretation of what Ross would have done? 

For those that don't, does it matter if the greens are fun to play?

Perhaps Art or someone else has some pictures that could aid any discussion.  There are a few in this thread, but they do not really focus on the greens.  http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,32850.0.html








Tyler Kearns

  • Karma: +0/-0
Jason,

I think the oval shapes that you have seen on many Ross tracks are a resultant of decades of maintenance rather than design. From the admittedly limited number of Ross drawings I have seen, the greens tended to be rather squarish in shape, often, with those corners protruding between a couple of bunkers to provide a real exacting hole location. Some of these corners feature some tight turning radius', and were likely lost with the advent of the triplex mower. Further, as golfers, we notice when the maintenance crew scalps the fringe, therefore, they tend to err on the inside edge of the putting surface, resulting in smaller, and more oval greens.

TK

Art Roselle

  • Karma: +0/-0
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.

TEPaul

Jason:

Ron Prichard seems to be very pleased and pretty proud of the work done at Charlotte CC. He does read this website when he gets the chance and altought he doesn't like to post (he says he doesn't like to type) he will send messages to some of us that we can put on here from him.

Would you like me to ask him?

Ed Oden

  • Karma: +0/-0
First of all, the Charlotte CC restoration is terrific.  The new greens are clearly showstoppers.  I anticipate that will prove to be even more the case once they have had a chance to mature.  But to my eye, the tree removal is just as noteworthy.  In that endeavor, I think Prichard and the club should be commended for finding just the right balance between removing enough trees to avoid impacting play and open up vistas throughout the property without disturbing the overall parkland feel of the place.  Art and the other CCC members should be very proud.

As for Ross' green designs, I also am no expert.  But my humble club in Charlotte is also undergoing a restoration of our Ross course (by Kris Spence).  Fortunately, we have Ross' original routing plan.  Most of the greens shown on the plan were squarish in shape, rather than round.  Kris is recapturing that spirit in his restoration.  So I think our experience matches what Art and Tyler described in their posts.  I don't know for sure, but I would expect that is more typical of Ross' design principles than the Pinehurst #2 style greens that most people think are the standard.

Ed

Jeff Shelman

  • Karma: +0/-0
All I know is that if Ron's work at Charlotte is half as good as the work he did at Idle Hour in Lexington, the folks at Charlotte CC are very lucky.

My understanding is that some of the folks from Charlotte CC went to Idle Hour and knew they were going to hire Prichard before the return trip home.

Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Jason:

Ron Prichard seems to be very pleased and pretty proud of the work done at Charlotte CC. He does read this website when he gets the chance and altought he doesn't like to post (he says he doesn't like to type) he will send messages to some of us that we can put on here from him.

Would you like me to ask him?

That would be interesting.  I really enjoyed the greens but was surprised.  Obviously all of the Ross greens I have played are many years old so they may no longer reflect their original character.  It may also be the case that Charlotte was attempting to make a championship course so that Pricard followed more of the Pinehurst No. 2 approach than he would have on most Ross courses.

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Jason -

Comparisons are always dangerous, but we have the Ross field sketches for the greens at Athens CC. They were done about the same time Ross designed Charlotte CC. The greens he wanted at ACC and the current greens at ACC now are very different.

Ross drew green boundaries that were much more irregular than existing boundaries. Most have evolved into dull obloids.

Also Ross drew much more extreme internal contours than now exist. He tied those contours to greenside bunker brows or surrounds. With some exceptions, the greens are now relatively flat.

(BTW, it's not clear that the greens Ross designed were ever actually built at ACC. But that's another story.)

So I'm not surprised that members at Charlotte CC were suprised with what Pritchard did. Their surprise is probably a marker that Pritichard was going in the right direction. I would love to see your course someday.

Bob
« Last Edit: April 16, 2008, 10:13:21 AM by BCrosby »

Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Jason -

So I'm not surprised that members at Charlotte CC were suprised with what Pritchard did. That they were surprised is probably a marker that Pritichard was going in the right direction. I would love to see your course someday.


Bob - I do not think the members were suprised (it is Art'as course not mine).  It sounds like Mr. Prichard communicated very clearly what he intended to do with the greens.  You should definitely see them.  They are a challenge.  I imagine the course will hold up well for competitive events.

Art Roselle

  • Karma: +0/-0
Given Ran's recent thread about green designs, I thought I would bump this discussion up again.  There are two other Ross restorations going on in Charlotte right now.  Both Myers Park CC and Carolina GC are being restored by Kris Spence and should open later this year.

In a recent article about MPCC, the author (and Spence) made the following comments about Ross greens

And at the greens, the architect has restored some distinctive Ross characteristics – rolls, tiers, decks and distinct dropoffs that lead to bunkers and rough.  The intent is to give the greens enough variety to challenge players’ short games.  “Once the player gets to the green, the hole is not over,” says Spence.

This is similar to some of the comments I posted earlier from Ron Prichard, especially the part about dropoffs that lead to bunkers, which I thought was interesting.


Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
The strange thing to me is that Mr. Prichard's greens at Charlotte C.C. are now the FOURTH completely new set of greens in the history of the course.  There were Ross's originals; Robert Trent Jones' version, which I thought were some of his better work; Brian Silva's "restored Ross" version, which I never did see, but only lasted about 10-12 years; and now Ron Prichard's.

Given that history, the members should be experts at renovations or restorations by now.


Lynn_Shackelford

  • Karma: +0/-0
They may be more than experts.  Street talk is the course and clubhouse renovation tab is $20 million.
It must be kept in mind that the elusive charm of the game suffers as soon as any successful method of standardization is allowed to creep in.  A golf course should never pretend to be, nor is intended to be, an infallible tribunal.
               Tom Simpson

Jamey Bryan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Tom

I was previously unaware that RTJ Sr had done work at Charlotte.  The Ross Society writeup says something to the effect that he rerouted three holes to accommodate the clubhouse, and changed "some of the green surfaces."

Do you know the extent to which Jones rebuilt/altered the greens while he was there?  Candidly, this is asked due to some local discussion regarding the "character" of true Ross greens.

Thanks.

Jamey

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Jamey:

I was given the impression that Mr. Jones had done work to many of the greens, but to what extent, I do not know.

Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0

Art Roselle

  • Karma: +0/-0
We complain about our local paper like most people, but that was a surprisingly good article.  Even beyond my obvious bias (and the fact that the article is complimentary), he actually said things like "minimalist", "firm and fast" and "to encourage walking".  I would not normally expect that from the Observer.

That would seem to be a sign that some of the trends and preferences discussed here are actually sinking in with a broader audience too.