[Patrick_Mucci]

to me this ranks right up there with Raynor's routing of Cypress Point in GCA folk lore....

assuming Mr White's research is correct (and it seems to be supported by several other authorities form the Tuffs family to the Dye family and on and on) then why do we all allow the elephant stay in the room....these current #2 greens are NOT what Donald Ross built.

Chip,

Obviously Ross didn't build USGA spec greens.

But aside from that, can anyone tell us exactly what Ross built ?

You can't restore to an unknown or vague memory.

So, how does each green differ today from when they were grassed in 1935 ?

Does anyone really know ?

Or do myths abound ?

[Kevin_D]

I took this earlier this year at Plainfield.

More "saddle" than crowned, but same principle, no?

My tee shot hit the front part of the green and rolled back into the bunker.

[Brent Hutto]

You can't prove a negative.

If the current greens are substantially, in detail, very similar to what Donald Ross left when he passed it would be the single most unlikely thing any of us has ever seen. So much time has gone by and for a large portion of that time nobody knew or cared to document the exact, original contours. It would boggle rationality if somehow they had been restored to Ross's original greens.

I think it's fascinating the extent to which careful research has shown some of the twists and turns those greens have take over past half-century or so. Through the fruits of such research we can trace specific attributes of the greens at various points in time to this or that modification/renovation/restoration/update cycle. But there is no Ground Zero original intent document available to reference any claim about this or that green being exactly what "Donald Ross designed and built".

The burden of proof would be on anyone making such a claim. They would need to provide detailed evidence of the contours or at least the heights of various green sections relative to the surrounds, dating back to when Donald Ross was alive. I've seen no such documentation referenced anywhere and have to believe it does not exist.

Seems the best we can do is trace the evolution of the greens back as far as the first well-document rebuild. But that occurred after many years of evolution and changes post-Ross.

[Joe Andriole]

An examination of the digital mapping done at the time of conversion to bent grass by Nicklaus et al. would shed some light on this controversy. I wonder if it still exists.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kevin D,

That's a false front and sloped green, not a domed green.

[Nigel Islam]

I see similarities in the green in Kevin D's picture and the 13th and 15th at Pinehurst.

[Joe Bausch]

From The Lurker:

JWL:
 
Thank you so much for your comprehensive Reply #21 that explains your recollections and involvement in the 1988 Nicklaus/Connor project at Pinehurst #2. In my opinion, that pretty much puts to rest, or at least somewhat alters this long running story I heard that the present crowned #2 greens were essentially the result of some mathematical totaling up error when the greens were transitioned from their original evolved profiles into USGA Spec green construction by Nicklaus/Connor in 1988.
 
However, after just reading Dunlop White's excellent article on the entire history of #2's greens (I would suspect that some may question the accuracy of Dunlop's account but I would challenge any of them to try to do it with actual and factual evidence/information rather than simply speculation), it would appear that the Nicklaus/Connor project was the first time #2's greens actually had their evolved surfaces completely removed throughout (at least their basic centers) to reconstruct the subsurface profile to USGA green specs. I realize a dedicated attempt was made with the Connor "contour-grade shooting method" to recreate the preexisting surface contours, but nevertheless that project seems to be the first time Ross's evolved greens were comprehensively dug up (I should add Dunlop's fascinating explanation of the "digging out" alteration previously by Diamond Head in 1969-70 of Ross's mounded green perimeters----eg to the disappointment of Peter Tufts).
 
I really do feel like the dummy, at this point, since I sat there in the Media Center Information Desk for the entire week of the Men's US Open, and I was not even aware that Rees Jones had done work to Pinehurst #2 in 1996 in preparation for the 1999 US Open. And I feel like a dummy for not having read Dunlop's article before or during that week. (Dunlop, I guess I should say that consequently we sure did miss your presence and your knowledge when you took off following our Tuesday Architecture Forum. By the way, what happened to Chris Buie? We expected him in the Media Center).
 
I'm now fairly confident that the real story of the evolution of the greens of Pinehurst #2 has now been told comprehensively (including Pete and Alice Dye's recollections of topdressing adding app. 12" to the greens profile heights). I am also quite confident that when the television commentators stated time and again when numerous balls rolled off #2's greens that that was the way Donald Ross designed it and wanted it-----that they were in very large part simply wrong.
 
And lastly, I feel like a double-dummy because I sat in the Media Center for about fifteen to twenty minutes chatting with my old friend Rees Jones and I never thought to ask him about his 1996 Pinehurst #2 project because I was unaware of it at that time. So, what did we talk about? We pretty much only talked about Golfclubatlas.com (or what he generally referred to as "that website") and those who had been part of it who were referred to as "that California Contingent." (TommyN if you really do want me to try to engineer a "sit-down" with Rees, I will try to do it. I suggest if it is possible we also bring JWL, Dunlop and perhaps others of choice. I will take responsibility for the entire "sit-down" arrangements including all weapons of any type being checked at the door).
 
The Lurker

[Joe Bausch]

to me this ranks right up there with Raynor's routing of Cypress Point in GCA folk lore....

assuming Mr White's research is correct (and it seems to be supported by several other authorities form the Tuffs family to the Dye family and on and on) then why do we all allow the elephant stay in the room....these current #2 greens are NOT what Donald Ross built.

Chip,

Obviously Ross didn't build USGA spec greens.

But aside from that, can anyone tell us exactly what Ross built ?

You can't restore to an unknown or vague memory.

So, how does each green differ today from when they were grassed in 1935 ?

Does anyone really know ?

Or do myths abound ?

More from The Lurker:

"To the writer of Reply #25 and its various questions-----I strongly suggest you read very carefully Dunlop White's article and very carefully consider what the details in it say and explain apropos of some of your various questions. If, after that, you are still stumped somehow, I suggest you address your future questions directly to Dunlop White III."

[JMEvensky]

Joe B.,it's a heavy cross you bear--amanuensis for a legend.

I especially liked "to the writer of Reply #25...".

[Joe Bausch]

The Lurker is a chatty-Kathy this morning!

I think to do a form of summation on this subject (by essentially relying on Dunlop White's article chronicling the history and evolution of Pinehurst #2's greens) it would include the basic conclusion that the greens of Pinehurst #2 are today not all that much like Ross designed them and intended them to be and to play.
 
It seems the supreme irony in all this is not just that they are not all that much like he designed them and intended them to be and play, but that those greens have somehow come to be recognized as the essential Donald Ross green style!
 
By the way, Dunlop, although Ross's green style surely did evolve in various ways over his long career, one of the best and most sophisticated examples of his evolved green style surely is the greens of Aronimink (1929) which thankfully really haven't been much altered over the years. And they very much do exhibit that contour aspect you mentioned on his original Pinehurst #2 grass greens----eg that "counter-sloping" around the green perimeters that actually protected balls from rolling off sides and backs unless putted or hit much too hard. (that term "counter-slopes" on Aronimink's greens was first mentioned to me by Kye Goalby some years ago).

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe,

You can inform your lurker that I began playing PH# 2 in the 50's.

In addition my father began playing PH# 2 in the 30's.

So, during what time frame, exactly, did this mysterious, additional 12 inches in the middle, evolve ?

And, why didn't it evolve on EVERY green ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JWL,

When you "cored out" or "bathtubbed" the greens, what did the soil profile reveal ?

Certainly, someone involved with the project or prior to the project had to take deep core samples.

If so, they should have revealed the impact of top dressing, especially if the layer closest to the surface, 12 inches in depth, was ALL topdressing, as is being alleged.

And, why would only a limited or select number of greens have their centers raised by 12 inches ?

While I have the utmost respect for Dunlap White and his work, the physical facts don't seem to confirm his position.

[Chip Gaskins]

I have been wanting this conversation to happen for years.  I just wish it would happened BEFORE the US Open(s).

[Craig Disher]

It is possible to have fair visual comparison of the 1938 Ross greens and the current ones. The Tufts Archives has several photos dating from 1938 which clearly show greens with more internal contour. Most can be seen in Richard Mandell's superb Pinehurst book. Here are two views of the 18th taken from a 1938 newsreel which suggest that the contours that Ross designed have disappeared. This one shows a deep trough on the right side of the green. The trough is certainly not there now.



A longer view of the green shows it to be less elevated. The trough is visible.

[Brent Hutto]

Craig,

That longer photo gives a real clear view of the elevation or not at various points around the periphery of the green. That's a good one.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Craig,

The key is pinpointing exactly if/when the green/s were changed, why and how.

Some have stated that no planned changes took place during the Tufts ownership.
Is that true ?

Unfortunately, the photos I have from 1938 don't provide green contours.

One also has to be careful when looking at old photos/films because we've seen incidents where mislabeling occured.
Are there other identifiable features that confirm that a green in a photo is in fact the green referenced ?

Others have indicated that work done on the greens POST Tufts ownership, faithfully restored the contouring in the greens with minor modifications.

So, the question remains, were the greens altered ?
If so, which ones ?
When and why ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Craig,

P.S.  Where can we obtain Richard Mandell's book ?

[Joe Bausch]

Craig,

P.S.  Where can we obtain Richard Mandell's book ?

Nice price at Amazon, but they appear to be temporarily out of stock:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Legendary-Evolution-Pinehurst-American/dp/0979483697/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1403716462&sr=8-1&keywords=richard+mandell

[Jason Thurman]

There are enough old photographs to make it clear that, at a minimum, many of the greens at Pinehurst have changed and grown more crowned with less internal contour. I don't think there's any real question about that.

I haven't seen old photos of every green on the course, though. Even if they exist, they wouldn't be adequate to recreate the original greens with any real measure of accuracy unless they are far more detailed than the ones I've seen. Even if the original greens could be accurately created, the iconic status of the current set means the resort would probably never change them. I doubt that Pinehurst's greens will ever see a substantial restoration as a result.

I have little else to add, but this thread is a perfect example of how great this site is at its best. There are some photos of the 1930s/40s era greens from a few holes at Pinehurst in Brad Klein's "Discovering Donald Ross." I may see if I can find them and post them in a day or so.

[Craig Disher]

Craig,

P.S.  Where can we obtain Richard Mandell's book ?

It's out of stock on Amazon but you can try contacting Richard directly through his website

http://www.golf-architecture.com/

[Ed Homsey]

Other than an announcement of the Travis Society's scholarship program a few years ago, this is the first thread I've introduced, and I am impressed with the result.  A lot of careful analysis, informed and insightful opinions.  I greatly respect the information provided by Michael Fay who, in my book, is the Ross expert.  Also appreciate and enjoyed the excerpt from Dunlop White's book.  From outside looking in, I believe that the factual information given by Fay, White, and some others trump personal recollections.  Memories going back into the '50s or '30s have poor reliability, at best.  But, if we keep hearing from the TV bloviators about the "Ross Greens" at Pinehurst #2, it'll soon become fact. 

My original intent of this thread was to consider the evolution of Ross's approach to the design of green sites, assuming that the Pinehurst #2 greens represented sorta the starting point.  But, since those greens weren't grassed until the mid-30s, they would not be considered the starting point of his green concepts.  Occurs to me that he grassed the greens at Camden CC in '35-36.  Wonder how similar those are to Pinehurst 2?  I suspect not at all, though I've only seen pictures of Camden's greens.

Could Jack Nicklaus shed some light on the subject of Pinehurst 2 green evolution?  Would he?

[Chip Gaskins]

Pat-  Check your PM re: Pinehurst book.

[Patrick_Mucci]

There are enough old photographs to make it clear that, at a minimum, many of the greens at Pinehurst have changed and grown more crowned with less internal contour.

Which greens ?
And, when did it happen ?
Having played there for decades I can't recall any changes to the greens starting from roughly 1960 to roughly 2000

I don't think there's any real question about that.

There are questions.
Specifically, what greens have become crowned that weren't initially crowned ?
I don't recall anyone citing the specific green/s

I haven't seen old photos of every green on the course, though. Even if they exist, they wouldn't be adequate to recreate the original greens with any real measure of accuracy unless they are far more detailed than the ones I've seen. Even if the original greens could be accurately created, the iconic status of the current set means the resort would probably never change them. I doubt that Pinehurst's greens will ever see a substantial restoration as a result.

Restoration to what ?
If you can't define the changes, if there are any, how can you embark on a restoration ?

I have little else to add, but this thread is a perfect example of how great this site is at its best.
There are some photos of the 1930s/40s era greens from a few holes at Pinehurst in Brad Klein's "Discovering Donald Ross."
I may see if I can find them and post them in a day or so.

Any photos of Pinehurst # 2's greens would be helpful.

[Joe Bausch]

He's alive!

Mr. Mucci:

Regarding your Replies #36 and #40, you really should read carefully Dunlop's article and Richard Mandell's new book (2013) on the entire history of Pinehurst. Once you've done that you'd been in a far better position to question if changes took place to #2 and any of its greens----when, how and why. When Diamondhead bought Pinehurst in 1971 they implemented what they called a "modernization plan" to #2. They referred to the La Costa model. It was a form of modern age so-called improvement citing the necessity of basic golf and architectural "standardization."

You've said you played Pinehurst from the 1950s or 1960s to 2000 and noticed no difference in the course or the greens. By that do you mean you think no changes ever took place because you didn't notice them? Mandell's book quotes Richard and Peter Tufts as being really disappointed with those changes. He also quotes P.J Boatright (the director of the Carolina Golf Association before joining the USGA) as certainly noticing the changes to the course and the greens.

Again, once you've read Dunlop's and Mandell's accounts very carefully I think you will be in a far better position to question their accounts of changes to Pinehurst #2, including the greens.

[John Burnes]

Dear Lurker-

I was wondering if you ever had a conversation with our friend in Montgomerville, Pa?  If so, what are his thoughts and does he use turtle backed greens in his approach to restoring/renovating Ross courses?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()