Tom Paul,
My final attempt describing the difference in green contours! Photographs before and after would assist this effort; however, I presently do not have any good photos of before.
Plus, I cannot post photos until I get a personal domain. Thanks for your patience!
The original greens were so severely contoured that there were NOT many pinnable positions. The greens just randomly undulated all over the place. Therefore, as I described above, the "greens within the green" were not particularly noticeable, visible, or obvious in such a wave of commotion. The "greens within the green" were instead a learned response through playing experience.
On the other hand, because our green contours were "softened", there are many more pinnable locations today. For example, if the lower levels on a green-grid (the swales) were raised toward the "medium", then that location will in fact have a larger puttable surface area. If they are larger in puttable surface areas, then these "greens within a green" will naturally be more noticeable or visible. Similarly, if the higher level points on a green-grid (the humps) were shaved toward the "medium", then that location will too have a larger puttable surface area. The larger the puttable surface area within the contours, the more visible, noticeable, and obvious the "green within the green".
If you take a 3D picture of our old greens, you would likely see many sharp "concave" and "convex" shapes. If you raise the vertices of the concave angles and lower the vertices of the convex angles, the vertices themselves, both at the top and the bottom, would become wider and more level. I hate to use this word, but this process has the effect of creating "plateau-like" areas. Some of our greens, particularly at Holes 1,5,14, 16 and 18 contain these areas due to their "softening" The picture of Hole 5 hopefully will be posted soon. It is these wider more level areas, the greens within the green, which presently catch my eye.
The contours do continue to "meld", but they are more subdued. It is my understanding that greens can be simulated through computerized "terrain model mapping" utilizing Auto CAD, Sokkia Data Collectors, etc. Apparently, Ed Connor and Robert Sheridan have done many similar green replications, since one or the other was involved at Brookhollow CC and Riviera with Coore and Crenshaw. I will inquire as to whether they were used at Old Town? Coore therefore knows terrain modeling first hand, which justified his comment to me about it being an inexact procedure at best.
So why did we "restore/renovate" our greens? At the time I was not close to the decision process so I really do not know first hand. I seriously doubt that the temptation of increased green speeds was the goal. Instead, it was likely the consequence. I will elaborate on the agronomic conditions.
As I stated before, our greens were constantly soft and spongy. Frequently, balls would plug into the greens. When I spoke to Pat O'Brien, head of the Southeast section of the USGA who assists clubs with turfgrass issues, he explained to me that we had serious sub-surface problems. Because our sub-surface, like many other classic designs which were "push-ups" and were not built to modern USGA requirements, consisted of clay and silt primarily, internal drainage was sacrificed. The percolation rate was less than one inch per hour. Thus, when it rained, the greens would be moist and damp for a long time. If it were not for the surface drainage due to our severe green contours, we would have had virtually no drainage at all. Because of these wet conditions, our Penncross Bentgrass had serious root problems.
Because Old Town had little control over soil moisture in its greens, we could not prevent foreign grasses, such as poa annua and commonbermuda, from encroaching and taking over. These foreign grasses simply thrive in damp conditions. Thus, O'Brien recommended that we consult an architect with the prospect of reconstructing our greens with a sand based fill pad to USGA specs. This would allow for proper sub-surface drainage. and plant a newer grass which in turn would have a healthier root system and would be more competitively dominant over the foreign grasses.
Old Town basically had three alternatives:
1. Fumigation and Re-seeding- supposedly this was not a prudent option because of the likelihood that the Bermuda/poa annua would return due to the sub-surface drainage issues.
2. Aerify and Top-dress Continuously: this is also unlikely to improve conditions as soil ingredients will likely change very little over time, compounded by the fact that the internal content would only change, if any, 6 inches deep. Ideally, the content needed to be altered 18 inches below the surface.
3.Reconstruct Greens to USGA specs.: this would allow for sub-surface drainage, new grass with healthier root systems, firmer conditions, and no foreign grasses encroaching while not necessarily sacrificing originality in contour due to terrain simulation/laser topography. Plus, restoring their sizes was a prominent consideration as well.
Once again, I believe selecting the third option was a reasonable decision. However, the contours before were so unique, that altering them might have been the last option for me. I'm a minority though.
Chris,
I almost forgot! Brad Klein visited Old Town Club a few months ago for the first time. Although he did not play the course, we did a ride-through. He could also lend his perspective on the greens for your book.
Dunlop