[Mike Hendren]

No doubt the greens at Mountain Ridge are fun and fantastic and in his presentation Ron Pritchard mentioned Ross' "intent" frequently.  That said, I don't recall experiencing the type of internal micro-movement at other Ross courses that was so prevalent at Mountain Ridge.  From my experience Ross generally deployed a broad tilt, generally high in the back with only limited internal contouring.  The untouched 18th at Mountain Ridge is more typical from my experience and it stood out distinctly from the other greens there. 

One admittedly amateurish theory is that Pritchard might have interpreted Ross' (or an associates) drawings accurately but that Ross never intended to build what was drawn. 

Ross restorations are in vogue and I have found the work of Pritchard et al to result in very good golf courses.  I just can't help but wonder, however if the term "Ross Greens" is a slightly inaccurate term of endearment.

Your thoughts?

Mike

[David_Madison]

Michael,

Do you remember that as we played in the rain you could see faint lines showing the boundaries of the greens before Pritchard's restoration? Those were all pretty much rounded, showing how over time the greens had shrunk and lost their original shapes. I asked the superintendent while we were playing if any dirt was moved to adjust the ground levels outside of those lines and he said "no", that the sections of the greens that were added were simply reclaimed from what were fringes or other green surrounds grass heights. Also, he said that the internal contouring of the greens was pretty much exactly as Pritchard found them to be.

Charlotte Country Club had more interpretation of the type I believe you are referring to. I earlier asked Ron about Charlotte, as those greens were even more animated than Mountain Ridge's, and also had more projections or extensions than I'd ever seen on Ross greens. He acknowledged that at Charlotte he did indeed add to those greens, that he was doing more an interpretation of what would very possibly do given the design of the holes, the terrain around the greens, and the opportunities he had to work with that land.

[Chris Buie]

Michael, you ask a good question.  Much of the internal contouring Ross originally put in has been lost through time and misguided modifications.  However, he did do a considerable amount of this type of work in his day.  Here is an example (from the Tufts Archives by way of Dunlop White):


This isn't to say that Mr. Pritchard didn't do some great interpretations - just that Ross did do so some creative moves with the interior of the greens.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

With the exception of # 3, no fill was added to enhance/enlarge a green and NO internal contours were touched.

Those putting surfaces were merely recaptured by mowing out to the fill/foot pads.

Those are Ross's greens, with the exception of the addition to # 3.

In terms of alterations to the original greens, # 3 and # 7 differ from the 1929 Schematic produced by Ross.
But, we've seen other examples where holes/greens/features were originally built differently from the field notes/schematics.

Other than the expansion of # 3, NO fill/foot pad was touched by Ron Prichard at Mountain Ridge.

Hope that clarifies the matter for you.

[Mike Hendren]

Thanks gents.  I consider your posts to be good news indeed.

[Sean_A]

Bogey

I grew up on a Ross course (still one of the best sets of greens I have ever seen) with loads of internal contours on the greens.  Oakland Hills is another example.  

Ciao

[TEPaul]

To me there is no question that the Ross greens in the first half of his career (teens) are considerably different in style and contouring than his later greens in the 1920s that had far more dramatic internal contouring and more flowing curvilinear outside lines and far more flowing internal contouring than his earlier ones which evolved from squarish to flare-outs in the back corners and more straight slope or some pretty straight lined terraces and such, and then into the above description into the 1920s.

It makes sense as that was basically the way most good architecture was evolving anyway through that timespan.  

I've always felt it was easier to pick up on the era or decade a good course was built than it is to pick out the architect who did it.

[Peter Pallotta]

Good thread, thanks gents.

It made me wonder (OT) how much latitude a serious student and disciple of Ross (or any of the old masters) should be given to interpret and bring forward into the future the master's original intentions. If a true and pure-hearted student comes to understand why his master designed greens in a certain way (given the technology and agronmy of the day, and the prevalent style/strategies of play), does he therefore have permission to transfer and translate and reinterpret that intention into the modern world (given our technology and agronomy and style of play). My opinion is that said student should be given a lot of latitude/permission, since while it is nice that a green look like the original it's more important that the green play like original.  Ironically, it seems that the most serious/earnest students of the past are the least likely to give themselves that permission. 

Peter

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()