[Joe Bausch]

From The Lurker:

All putting greens that are regularly top-dressed will have their surfaces rise over time. How much they rise over time (or where they rise more in some sections than in others*) is subject to various factors----for instance, how old they are (not rebuilt), how much top-dressing has been cumulatively used over time, etc.

So why is it said that Pinehurst #2 greens became so "domed," "crowned" or "turtle-backed" over time and most all other courses, including all other Ross courses, haven't. The answer to that is probably no other courses, including Ross', had their "green perimeter" architecture (Ross's mounding and upslopes just off his original grass putting green surfaces) bull-dozed away as #2's did by Diamondhead in the early 1970s.

If that is true, the question becomes, why did Diamondhead do that to #2's greens?

To me, that is not only a really good question, but it may also be THE question (and answer) of how and why #2's green BEGAN to get the way they are where so many balls tend to slide off the sides of those greens unlike most all his other courses, and most all other courses. Therefore, it seems to me, this odd and interesting project of Diamondhead bull-dozing Ross' original grass green perimeter mounding and architecture is where and when this question and answer should begin. The next project of Nicklaus/Connor in 1987 may just be the second step of this on-going evolution.

So why did Diamondhead bull-doze away the perimeter mounding around Ross's #2 greens? I  sure don't have the answer to that and frankly I have yet to see anyone explain it in detail other than perhaps to some extent Dunlop White or Richard Mandell. They've done the research and they wrote about it. I had never been within 50 miles of Pinehurst before spending the 2014 Men's Open week at the information desk of the Media Center for the USGA. I have no past experience with Pinehurst, so all I've done, to date, is read what White and Mandell wrote and it certainly makes sense to me, particularly as both of their writings are well documented with quotations from those who were there during Pinehurst's fascinating evolution. (Yes, Patrick Mucci, I have no experience with the history of Pinehurst; so other than speaking with C&C and Disher about it, I merely read what White and Mandell wrote and I once again suggest you do the same (you said you read Dunlop but apparently you do not have Mandell's book. I suggest you get it and read it very carefully. At least I did that so why don't you? Are you afraid it may reveal something you don't want to know or hear?). As to why Ross built that green perimeter mounding on #2 and why Diamondhead bull-dozed it away in the early 1970s, I would speculate the underlying story probably has a whole lot to do with the history and evolution of irrigation in golf.

Ross probably created his green perimeter mounding and bunker faces (above much of his original green surfaces) as a way of retaining moisture for his early greens. Don't forget in 1935 artificial irrigation was pretty rudimentary and inefficient (compared to the modern age of golf architecture) and frankly the water supply of Pinehurst in Ross' day was somewhat problematic. As Mandell points out in his book, when Diamondhead bought the resort in the early 1970s they set about upgrading the entire water supply system of Pinehurst. And following that they regrassed the greens and pretty much went wall to wall with grass roughs in place of original un-irrigated natural sand areas. So perhaps they just decided to bull-doze out Ross' perimeter green mounding architecture because it was no longer needed for green moisture retention.**


*Evolutionary "sand kick" from golfers playing out of particularly highly used green-side bunkers is a well known process whereby some sections of putting greens rise more than other sections. This is basically golfers top-dressing greens by play on a regular basis.

**Don't forget that many old fashioned early putting greens were purposefully created in bowl shapes simply to facilitate increased moisture retention. And we all have to remember that water retention in a naturally sandy sites is a whole lot more problematic than for instance clay-loam former farmland sites.

[Patrick_Mucci]

From The Lurker:

All putting greens that are regularly top-dressed will have their surfaces rise over time. How much they rise over time (or where they rise more in some sections than in others*) is subject to various factors----for instance, how old they are (not rebuilt), how much top-dressing has been cumulatively used over time, etc.

So why is it said that Pinehurst #2 greens became so "domed," "crowned" or "turtle-backed" over time and most all other courses, including all other Ross courses, haven't. The answer to that is probably no other courses, including Ross', had their "green perimeter" architecture (Ross's mounding and upslopes just off his original grass putting green surfaces) bull-dozed away as #2's did by Diamondhead in the early 1970s.

Joe,

Scraping away, bulldozing and cutting away the perimeter doesn't change the internal surfaces, the internal contouring of the putting greens, it merely accentuates the angle of the slopes into the putting surfaces.

If that is true, the question becomes, why did Diamondhead do that to #2's greens?

That's a question worth asking IF it's true.
IF it is true, first you have to ask, whose idea was this and WHY, then, why did the idea rise to the level of execution.
And, who supervised the work.
One would be hard pressed to think that the idea, supervision and execution were home grown, internal at MacClean Trucking.
It's more probable that the idea, supervision and execution were external in nature.
Yet, I don't recollect anyone taking credit for the project.

To me, that is not only a really good question, but it may also be THE question (and answer) of how and why #2's green BEGAN to get the way they are where so many balls tend to slide off the sides of those greens unlike most all his other courses, and most all other courses.


Pinehurst # 2 had crowned greens long before MacClean/Diamondhead bought PH.
The second green was crowned decades prior to M/D.
Other greens weren't crowned.

I suspect that someone, internally or externally suggested that most or all of the greens should be crowned, resembling the second green.
If that's the case, I would suspect that the work was done "in-house"

Therefore, it seems to me, this odd and interesting project of Diamondhead bull-dozing Ross' original grass green perimeter mounding and architecture is where and when this question and answer should begin. The next project of Nicklaus/Connor in 1987 may just be the second step of this on-going evolution.

So why did Diamondhead bull-doze away the perimeter mounding around Ross's #2 greens? I  sure don't have the answer to that and frankly I have yet to see anyone explain it in detail other than perhaps to some extent Dunlop White or Richard Mandell. They've done the research and they wrote about it. I had never been within 50 miles of Pinehurst before spending the 2014 Men's Open week at the information desk of the Media Center for the USGA. I have no past experience with Pinehurst, so all I've done, to date, is read what White and Mandell wrote and it certainly makes sense to me, particularly as both of their writings are well documented with quotations from those who were there during Pinehurst's fascinating evolution. (Yes, Patrick Mucci, I have no experience with the history of Pinehurst; so other than speaking with C&C and Disher about it, I merely read what White and Mandell wrote and I once again suggest you do the same (you said you read Dunlop but apparently you do not have Mandell's book. I suggest you get it and read it very carefully. At least I did that so why don't you? Are you afraid it may reveal something you don't want to know or hear?). As to why Ross built that green perimeter mounding on #2 and why Diamondhead bull-dozed it away in the early 1970s, I would speculate the underlying story probably has a whole lot to do with the history and evolution of irrigation in golf.

TEPaul,

I don't need to read White's or Mandell's writings to tell me what occurred at Pinehurst in the 50's, 60's and 70's.
I know for a fact what happened and what didn't happen.
I was there, every year for decades and as I've stated over and over and over again, to the uninformed, such as yourself,  NOTHING was done to the internal putting surfaces.

The internal putting surfaces didn't become domed, not through top dressing and not through reconstruction.
The notion that the internal putting surfaces "became" domed during the time I first began playing there is a myth.

I think you'll find that the two sources you've cited confirm exactly what I've stated

Ross probably created his green perimeter mounding and bunker faces (above much of his original green surfaces) as a way of retaining moisture for his early greens. Don't forget in 1935 artificial irrigation was pretty rudimentary and inefficient (compared to the modern age of golf architecture) and frankly the water supply of Pinehurst in Ross' day was somewhat problematic. As Mandell points out in his book, when Diamondhead bought the resort in the early 1970s they set about upgrading the entire water supply system of Pinehurst. And following that they regrassed the greens and pretty much went wall to wall with grass roughs in place of original un-irrigated natural sand areas. So perhaps they just decided to bull-doze out Ross' perimeter green mounding architecture because it was no longer needed for green moisture retention.**

That's your theory, one of pure conjecture, absent an iota of first hand facts regarding those greens.
Tell us how Ross built the first and second greens to retain moisture ? 


*Evolutionary "sand kick" from golfers playing out of particularly highly used green-side bunkers is a well known process whereby some sections of putting greens rise more than other sections. This is basically golfers top-dressing greens by play on a regular basis.

Then why didn't the perimeters rise rather than fall off ?
You can't have it both ways.

**Don't forget that many old fashioned early putting greens were purposefully created in bowl shapes simply to facilitate increased moisture retention. And we all have to remember that water retention in a naturally sandy sites is a whole lot more problematic than for instance clay-loam former farmland sites.


Ross typically elevated the greens at the perimeter in areas adjacent to bunkers in order to prevent runoff water from entering the bunker, not to irrigate the green

[Jason Thurman]

Do you still think that the application of top dressing is both uniform and static, that top dressing affects every portion of the green equally ?

That has always been the opposite of what I think. YOU are the one who has claimed that the greens at Pinehurst did not change for 50 years, citing as your evidence the fact that you didn't notice it when you visited. Everyone else on this thread has noted that the internal contour of the greens changed due to the gradual reduction that occurs due to topdressing while the greens themselves become more elevated and "domed" relative to their surroundings, as per the law of conservation of mass. You can claim all that you want that the greens didn't change from 1950 until 1988. Maybe someone will believe you. As for me, I will continue to trust the laws of physics over your own observations.

Photos show that the greens changed. Dunlop White and Richard Mandell's research chronicles their change. The fact that Ross never showed a proclivity for building crowned greens elsewhere suggests that they changed. YOU are the only dope on this thread that has suggested that the greens at Pinehurst did not change from the 1950s until 1988. We all know that you've been to the site more times than perhaps anyone else on this site. The fact that you have failed to observe the historically documented changes to the course through all those visits of yours only illuminates what anyone who reads your posts has long known - that regardless of the number of visits you make to a course, you simply don't have the observational skills to make your accounts credible.

Feel free to take 30 minutes doing the green font thing, but just FYI, it's quite clear to me that you're not a credible source on this topic and thus I won't be offering you any more troll food in this thread. I find Dunlop White's research far more compelling than your inane rambling, and anyone who doesn't probably isn't worth wasting any more time on when I could be lighting fireworks instead.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Do you still think that the application of top dressing is both uniform and static, that top dressing affects every portion of the green equally ?

That has always been the opposite of what I think.

You're a liar, that's not what you stated.
You denied and challenged my contention that top dressing was not uniform in terms of it's resultant impact after application.

Here's what you stated in reply # 69:
If the sand from topdressing simply disperses after application, what do you purpose is the point of topdressing?
What magical health effect does turf gain from having a layer of sand applied that then is irrigated and mown away?

I understand the conventional goals of the topdressing process.
But it sounds like Pat has knowledge of the laws of physics and agronomy that neither I nor any superintendent or historian are aware of.
I'd love to be edified. [/b]

So, I edified you, and now you claim that you knew that all the time.
You're intellectually dishonest, you're a liar.

YOU are the one who has claimed that the greens at Pinehurst did not change for 50 years, citing as your evidence the fact that you didn't notice it when you visited.

Once again, as is your pattern, you're deliberately misrepresenting what I stated.
I stated that there was no change to the internal contouring of the greens during the entire time I spent at Pinehurst.
I stand by that statement.
And, I defy you to disprove it.
Cite for me the exact change that took place on each green.

The fact is that you're a fraud.
You have no personal experience at PH# 2 and are holding yourself out as an expert based upon your interpretation of what's been stated and misrepresenting what I've stated.

So, tell us, how did each and every green change during the time frame I was playing Pinehurst # 2 ?

Everyone else on this thread has noted that the internal contour of the greens changed due to the gradual reduction that occurs due to topdressing while the greens themselves become more elevated and "domed" relative to their surroundings, as per the law of conservation of mass.

Identify by name, those on this thread who "noted" that the internal contouring changed in the time period I cited.
And cite the reply #
Go ahead and identify them.

Then, try to answer the question that I previously asked you, the one you refuse to answer.
If what you say is true about top dressing, why aren't GCGC's greens much higher, why do they continue to emerge, seemlessly out of the fairway.
Ditto Pine Valley and NGLA.
You just stated above, "as per the law of conservation of mass" that the greens must rise.
Well why didn't they rise in Clementon, NJ, Garden City, NY and Southampton, NY ?
Tell us genius, why do your "laws of conservation of mass" cease to function on those courses.
You're a fraud who thinks he's smarter than he is and the fact is that you know very little about PH# 2 and top dressing.

You can claim all that you want that the greens didn't change from 1950 until 1988.
Maybe someone will believe you. As for me, I will continue to trust the laws of physics over your own observations.

You're so full of yourself that it's comical, to the point of farce.
Explain to us why those "laws of physics" haven't applied to the greens at NGLA, GCGC or PV for a century.
The fact is that you don't understand top dressing, percolation and dispersion.

Photos show that the greens changed. Dunlop White and Richard Mandell's research chronicles their change.
The fact that Ross never showed a proclivity for building crowned greens elsewhere suggests that they changed.

Really ?
And you know this because you read two articles.
Then tell me, was the second green a crowned green ?
In 1958, 1968, 1978, 1987 ?
Did Ross build it as a crowned green ?


YOU are the only dope on this thread that has suggested that the greens at Pinehurst did not change from the 1950s until 1988.

That's not what I stated, which you conveniently, continue to misrepresent.

I stated that the internal contouring of the putting surfaces has not been changed.

I stand by that statement based on my play of that course for several days, every year, from 1958 to the late 70's and into the 80's and beyond.

What's your personal experience at Pinehurst # 2 ?

We all know that you've been to the site more times than perhaps anyone else on this site.

Hence my credibililty is exponentially greater than most.

The fact that you have failed to observe the historically documented changes to the course through all those visits of yours only illuminates what anyone who reads your posts has long known - that regardless of the number of visits you make to a course, you simply don't have the observational skills to make your accounts credible.

I'll repeat my question to you.
Tell us, precisely what "historically documented changes" to the internal contouring of the putting surfaces took place in the time I spent at PH# 2. 

One cannot observe that which never took place.

You keep claiming that changes to the internal contouring of the putting surfaces took place, but, you won't identify them.
I've asked you time and time again, "what changes" ?  But, you're incapable of answering.
I even narrowed it down for you, asking you to identify the changes to the first (1st) and second (2nd) green.
But, you FAILED to answer those questions.
And, the reason you failed is that you can't answer those questions and neither can the sources that you're relying on.
In other words, you're stuck without a paddle and no amount of weaseling will provide a paddle for you.

Phrased another way, you decided to "wade in" on a subject you know nothing about, and quickly got in over your head.
That's what happens when you think you're smarter than you really are.


Feel free to take 30 minutes doing the green font thing, but just FYI, it's quite clear to me that you're not a credible source on this topic and thus I won't be offering you any more troll food in this thread.

I understand, you're out of your league, outgunned and outmanned and retreat is what you do best.
You like to dish it out, but when confronted with positions that overwhelm yours, you do what you do best......... run and lick your wounds

I find Dunlop White's research far more compelling than your inane rambling, and anyone who doesn't probably isn't worth wasting any more time on when I could be lighting fireworks instead.

I see, it's "inane rambling" when I school you on top dressing and dispersion, and when I school you on how top dressing doesn't automatically elevate greens as you insisted.

You're a fraud and you're intellectually dishonest, so take your ball and run home.

But, I'm glad that you brought up Dunlop White's research.

Dunlop stated that PH#2's greens had risen 12 inches from 1936 to 1970.
He never quantified the alleged rise from 1958 to 1970, did he ?

Remind us again what Brad Kocher, the Director of Golf Maintenance since 1984 had to say.
I'll save you the time and do it for you.

"Brad Kocher, who came to Pinehurst with
the Club Corp acquisition in 1984, acknowledges
that the greens have ‘inched-up’ somewhat
over the years, as was evident from the
varying layers of soil, sand and organic matter
that he witnessed in the subgrade wall.
Kocher, who currently serves as Director ofGolf Maintenance,isn’t convinced that
Number Two’s greens have risen too drastically
though.


Go light fireworks, maybe that's something that you actually know about.
Did you read how to ignite them in some books ?

Stop avoiding the questions I posed to you and try to answer them.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Here's the second green in 1936, just as Ross built it.

Notice the elevated, crowned configuration at the perimeters.

I would imagine that disproves Jason's contention that Ross didn't build crowned greens.

[Jason Thurman]

Great pictures posted by Sven.  Jason describes some of the differences between the greens, as shown in those pictures, and today's greens.  Indicates those two 1938 greens were changed.  It would be great to know when, why, and by whom, in order to have a better understanding of the evolution of Pinehurst #2.  But, seems to me that the bottom-line question being addressed in this thread is:  Can the current Pinehurst #2 greens legitimately be considered Ross greens?       

Coming back to Ed's original question, Pete Dye opined on #2's greens in his Foreword to Brad Klein's excellent Discovering Donald Ross. Here's what Dye said:

About that No. 2 course. Those greens with the crowns? I'm sorry to say it but they're not what you'd call part of Mr. Ross's style. Go down the road to Mid Pines and Pine Needles, for example, where Mr. Ross built the greens himself, and you'll see more features than just crowns. That's what I think is so great about his work - that he changed what he was doing...

... At Pinehurst No. 2, however, those crowned greens are not really what he did anywhere else. This is because they've been top-dressed so much that they now look like perched-up angel cakes. That's what happened with common bermuda grass in those days. The only way to keep healthy turf on them was by top-dressing with lots of sand. Richard Tufts, who ran that place for many years, told my wife Alice and me that Pinehurst always put a lot more money into its greens - especially on the No. 2 course. They were top-dressed more often than at other courses and the result was that they changed over the years as they became built up from the additional sand. So they're quite different today from what Ross had planned. The slopes on the greens, and the way they fall off around the edges, are probably a lot more severe than he intended

A photo accompanying the text shows a photo of the 6th green from the Tufts Archives, and it's very clear in the photo that the signature fronting slope of the current 6th hole was not present in its early days. This is a scanned copy, but even with the degradation from scanning you can still see clearly the grade-level entrance to the green:



This is, of course, consistent with Sven's photos from earlier in this thread, showing the second and fourth greens. A quick look at the feet of the spectators in those photos shows that the front of those greens were at grade-level or even slightly below the fairway grade, as is the right side of the second green and both sides of the fourth. The present day greens are notably more elevated from their surroundings, particularly on the front and right side of 2 and the left side of 4.

Which all returns to the question of how the greens at Pinehurst became so much more pronouncedly crowned than the greens of other courses through top-dressing. The answer has three parts, as far as I can tell:

1. Pinehurst had common bermuda greens that required extensive topdressing. As Pete Lavallee noted, this topdressing was done without aeration until the 1960s. In contrast to other courses where aerification done in conjunction with topdressing helped to remove some matter to offset the matter added in the topdressing process, Pinehurst did not aerate their greens and thus the sand added gradually caused them to rise.

2. Unlike other courses that may have topdressed their common bermuda without aerating, Pinehurst had plenty of money to carry out extensive topdressing, as stated by Richard Tufts. Thus, their greens became crowned more pronouncedly than those of other courses.

3. Finally, there are a few potential contributing factors that are harder to pin down but that may well have also played a role. As noted by "The Lurker," Diamondhead had the green surroundings bulldozed which may have incidentally also caused a shift in the location of the crowned areas. Likewise, incorrect measurements during one of the several green reconstructions undergone at Pinehurst may also have resulted in exaggerated slopes.

Coming back to Ed's question, I do not think we can consider the greens at No. 2 today to be Ross greens. It's clear that they've shifted dramatically from their original design. However, I'm also not sure that there is enough documentation of their original design to ever inform a legitimate restoration or to really understand the nuances of how Ross intended his original greens to play. And while broadcasters who talk about "These classic Donald Ross turtle-backed greens" are a bit misinformed, I still find the current set to fit the holes quite well in my time playing and observing the course, and their unique evolution has created a very special set of putting surfaces.

[Colin Macqueen]

Gentlemen,

May I ask a possibly inane question.

Are "domed", "crowned", "turtleback" greens in this number on any one course anathema to an aspiring or established golf course architecture. If the answer from the cognoscenti is aye then one surely wouldn't expect an architect of Ross' calibre to have constructed so many of this ilk on the one course  … would one?

The greens at Pinehurst #2 today evolved from the greens at Pinehurst #2 yesterday.  Are these greens nowadays interacting with the golfer in the manner Ross intended. I have aways thought of Pinehurst #2 as iconic but is the idiosyncratic nature of her greens a mote in her eye?

Cheers Colin

[Craig Disher]

I think this 1930s photo should settle the issue of whether Ross intended the greens to be turtle-backed, domed , etc.   The photo below, taken at approximately the same time as the one posted above, shows that the overall putting surface was not elevated. Notice the location of the spectators at the rear; they can walk almost on level ground onto the green. This original green had significant internal contour - the high ridge on the right of the green is almost the inverse of the deep trough on #18 shown in the photo I posted earlier. Internal contour to that extent is now gone from all the #2 greens.



Here is a closeup of the ridge. The relative positions of the spectators (notice the ones standing in the bunker) show that the green had been built up considerably on the right but not with the intent of elevating the entire putting surface. The build-up was to create the large ridge that cut into the green from that side. The green on the left side and rear is almost at grade.

[Jason Thurman]

Colin, I think that's the paradox of No. 2. It is certainly an iconic course. In its early days, I would suspect its reputation grew because it offers that classic blend of playability for weak players and challenge for strong players, while also being part of a huge resort that brought it plenty of attention. Its reputation continued to grow as it hosted important tournaments like the North and South, a handful of majors, appeared on ranking lists, and as its status as Donald Ross' home course grew.

It's a rightful reputation, as it's a wonderful golf course. But it's different from many other great American golf courses in that it doesn't have a ton of visual panache. It's a very flat course, with memorable slope only present on 4, 5, 9, 13, and 14. The visual presentation is consistently of a strip of green between tall pines, and now with scrub areas as recaptured during the restoration. Its brilliance is based on angles and a general allure, but it's hard to pin down, especially for a typical resort player.

Over time, though, the course has evolved a set of greens that is anything but subtle. The player who visits the course and looks for something that stands out about its architecture will inevitably gravitate to the putting surfaces, and thus they have become the most defining and iconic feature of an already iconic course. So one one hand, they may indeed be a "mote in her eye" in the sense that they aren't what Ross designed and can be a bit one-dimensional. On the other hand, they have also become the most readily apparent feature of Pinehurst's iconic course.

One other thing, as I mentioned that blend of playability for weak players and challenge for strong players in the first paragraph. The current greens may not interact with the golfer in the way that Ross originally designed, but they certainly accommodate weak players while challenging strong ones. Weak players can putt from off the green and generally get down in 3 and keep moving, while strong players have a hard time getting down in 2 using that safe method and thus are often tempted to try a riskier pitch or chip, as we saw Kevin Na do on 16 during the third round of the US Open when he played ping pong back and forth across the green for a few shots.

[Patrick_Mucci]

With regard to the top dressing theory or myth.

Why haven't GCGC's NGLA's or PV's greens elevated ten (10) feet in the last 100 years ?

Why haven't they elevated five (5) feet ?

Why haven't they elevated two (2) feet ?

If topdressing elevates greens over time, why have these greens remained static for 100 years ?

Mandell claims that PH#2's greens heightened by 12 inches between 1936 and 1970.
That's 1/3 of an inch a year.

Does anyone on this site claim that they can detect an elevation of 1/3 of an inch over a one year period ?
Please identify yourself.


Craig Disher,

There's no denying the physical evidence in this photo of the second green.
It's a crowned green.



For the record, I never stated that Ross built every green at PH#2 in the form of an umbrella/crown, but, the second green, without doubt is, unless you don't see any elevation behind, left and right of the green.

[Sven Nilsen]

With regard to the top dressing theory or myth.

Why haven't GCGC's NGLA's or PV's greens elevated ten (10) feet in the last 100 years ?

Why haven't they elevated five (5) feet ?

Why haven't they elevated two (2) feet ?

If topdressing elevates greens over time, why have these greens remained static for 100 years ?

Did these courses aerate their greens? 

That seems to be the contention regarding Pinehurst, that they had extensive topdressing without aeration.

0 + 1 - 1 = 0

0 + 1 - 0 = 1

[Craig Disher]

Craig Disher,

There's no denying the physical evidence in this photo of the second green.
It's a crowned green.

Patrick Mucci,
That is not physical evidence. It's a photograph. Depending on the lens I use I can make any green look crowned. There is some distortion in the photograph which makes the edges of the green appear, particularly in the back, to fall away. The photo I posted was taken closer to the green with better equipment and shows people standing off the green at the same level as the putting surface.

This photo was taken prior to the renovation. It was shot from approximately the same location as the one I posted above although not from an elevated position. It's obvious to me that if the slope at the back of the green was present in the earlier photograph the spectators would have been standing well below the putting surface. The earlier green was not crowned but was built with a large ridge entering from the right side. From what's visible of the remaining putting surface, it was mostly at grade.

[Patrick_Mucci]

With regard to the top dressing theory or myth.

Why haven't GCGC's NGLA's or PV's greens elevated ten (10) feet in the last 100 years ?

Why haven't they elevated five (5) feet ?

Why haven't they elevated two (2) feet ?

If topdressing elevates greens over time, why have these greens remained static for 100 years ?

Did these courses aerate their greens? 

That seems to be the contention regarding Pinehurst, that they had extensive topdressing without aeration.

Sven,

There's more conflicting contentions.

Tom Paul, the lurker, stated that the Tufts skimped on top dressing.

So it can't be both.

You can't "skimp" on top dressing for financial reasons and on the other hand maintain that they used more costly "excessive" top dressing.

So which is it ?

Mandell maintained that between 1936 and 1970 the greens increased in height by approximately 1/3 of an inch a year.

But Brad Kocher, director of maintenance from 1984 indicated that core samples/profiles indicated that the greens had risen slightly.

So whose word are we to take, the "historians" or the director of maintenance who examined core samples/profiles ?

Me ?  I'm going with the fellow who for over 20 years was the director of maintenance.

So you can do all the math you want, based on hearsay, I'm going with the guy who examined the dirt, the green profiles.


0 + 1 - 1 = 0

0 + 1 - 0 = 1

[Patrick_Mucci]

Craig Disher,

There's no denying the physical evidence in this photo of the second green.
It's a crowned green.

Patrick Mucci,

That is not physical evidence. It's a photograph. Depending on the lens I use I can make any green look crowned.

Craig,

That would only be the case because you meant to distort.
The photo clearly indicates elevation changes at the perimeter.
And I'm pretty sure that the photographer wasn't intent on being devious.
And while I wan't there in 1936, neither were any of you, but, I was there in 1958 and the second green was crowned, umbrella like.

There is some distortion in the photograph which makes the edges of the green appear, particularly in the back, to fall away. The photo I posted was taken closer to the green with better equipment and shows people standing off the green at the same level as the putting surface.
I disagree with your assessment for several reasons.
First, the right side of the photo clearly shows a steep falloff.
Second, you've drawn a conclusion and interpret to support it

This photo was taken prior to the renovation. It was shot from approximately the same location as the one I posted above although not from an elevated position. It's obvious to me that if the slope at the back of the green was present in the earlier photograph the spectators would have been standing well below the putting surface. The earlier green was not crowned but was built with a large ridge entering from the right side. From what's visible of the remaining putting surface, it was mostly at grade.

The photo I re-posted clearly shows elevation of the green's footpad on the right side.
Do you dispute that ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Craig Disher,

There's no denying the physical evidence in this photo of the second green.
It's a crowned green.

Patrick Mucci,
That is not physical evidence. It's a photograph. Depending on the lens I use I can make any green look crowned.

That's only because your intent would be to distort, and to deceive.
I don't believe that was the photographer's intent.
I don't think he was motivated by anything other than recording what he saw.

There is some distortion in the photograph which makes the edges of the green appear, particularly in the back, to fall away. The photo I posted was taken closer to the green with better equipment and shows people standing off the green at the same level as the putting surface.
The right side of the photo clearly shows an elevated foot pad for the green.
Do you deny or confirm that ?

This photo was taken prior to the renovation.

What renovation ?  Date please

It was shot from approximately the same location as the one I posted above although not from an elevated position. It's obvious to me that if the slope at the back of the green was present in the earlier photograph the spectators would have been standing well below the putting surface. The earlier green was not crowned but was built with a large ridge entering from the right side. From what's visible of the remaining putting surface, it was mostly at grade.

That's not true.
Look at the right side of the photo and you can clearly see the slope up to the green
Is that woman standing at the same grade as the putting surface, or below it ?
If she's below it then the perimeter is crowned


Also, are you sure that's the second green ?
Look at the undulating, elevated fairway with he green sitting well below the crest of that fairway ?
Does that represent the lay of the land on the second hole ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sven,

Is it your theory that greens can't "elevate" if they're aerated ?

With respect to aeration, how frequently would it have to be performed for the greens to remain static ?

Would more aeration cause greens to "sink"

What's the number of times greens have to be aerated in order for them to remain static ?

As to top dressing absent aeration.
How many times, annually, and to what degree (application) does it take for a green to rise by 1/3 of an inch ?

[Craig Disher]

Patrick,
I didn't intend to suggest that the photographer intentionally distorted the photo, only that lenses with different focal lengths can give different representations of the subject photographed.  We may disagree on this but I'm convinced that the spectators standing at the back of the green are sufficient evidence that the 2nd green in the late 1930s was not crowned as we currently understand the term. I do agree that the right side was built up but not as an attempt to "crown" the green. The buildup was a ridge that extended into the green separating the front left from the back right. Only a hint of the ridge exists today.

An earlier post showed a similar photo to this one and indicated it was the 6th hole. In fact it's the 10th. This also shows a putting surface that begins at grade in the front. I don't have a current photo but I think anyone who has played the hole recently will confirm that the front of the green is raised well above grade.

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat:

It wasn't my contention, it was the contention made in Dunlop's article.

As for greens remaining "static" throughout periods of topdressing and aeration, my contention would be that no matter what measures are taken, the greens will always be changing to some degree.  Even a concrete surface would change over a 40 year period.

Sven

[Joe Bausch]

More from The Lurker:

I think this thread truly may be in that wonderful handful of the most interesting this website has ever had. We now have people virtually standing shoulder to shoulder (the computer Internet world) observing the very same things (albeit photographs) and coming away with different observations and interpretations. Isn't this what great art is supposed to be and intended to be? While in Philadelphia some years ago, I remember standing side by side with friends and family as we observed Vincent Van Gogh's traveling painting exhibition. It was just remarkable to me how people standing shoulder to shoulder could see and say such different and varied things about the same paintings, both in the details, and even in the over-all.

(For the record, I do acknowledge that the overall diversity of opinion amongst the participants on this thread about what they are seeing and interpreting in those old photographs may not be all that wide, as it seems most agree with each other, while Patrick Mucci and his green ink streaming seems to disagree with most).

Thank you Ed Homsey and the participants in this thread for creating and airing such a fascinating subject. To me, this just strengthens my "Big World" theory on golf architecture----eg "Golf and its architecture is a great big thing and there really is room in it for everyone." (that tastes vary greatly and in golf architecture there really does need to be a very wide spectrum of types and styles to accommodate it all).

And thank you Uncle Donald Ross. In my life and golf career I have played on your courses perhaps more than the rest of the significant architects of the Golden Age combined (although coming from L.I. CBM/Raynor did give you a run for it with me and my family). I have played more of my golf on your Gulph Mills in Philadelphia, Gulf Stream in Gulf Stream, Florida and Seminole in Palm Beach than all the other courses and architects I've played combined. But through all that and over about thirty plus years, I have never considered you to be in that top category of the best of the best. But now I think I do put you right up there with the best of the best. I recognize that your basic architectural style is the "looks easy, plays harder" compared and contrasted to MacKenzie's "looks hard, plays easier." But perhaps that "looks easy, plays harder" style of yours just lulled me into some form of lack of proper and necessary observation/interpretation all these years, and I consequently just never really picked up on the inherent nuances in your architecture, both aesthetically and in play. It fascinates me now to consider that even if I played at scratch for a few decades I might've been making mistakes with even what I considered to be good and proper shots, and I never really figured out why! And this even given the fact that my father belonged through the years to six or seven of your courses and he basically never really gave any of them up (other than just moving and moving on).

So, Uncle Donald, I'm willing to say now I think you're a genius. To consider the adage---"Imitation is the highest form of flattery," they have now taken that idea to another level with you and your seminal Pinehurst #2-----they have evolved it and changed it to some things that you didn't create and perhaps didn't intend, but despite that the golf course has now become doubly iconic for a type of green that you may not have ever intended----but nevertheless----they are all STILL giving YOU the credit for it all, and they are even assuming that THIS is your ultimate style.

I know you are moldering in your grave, but, if THIS doesn't put a smile on your face, Uncle Donald Ross----what will?

[Ed Homsey]

Lurker, my friend, that may have been the final word.  I greatly appreciate your drawing a comparison between the perceptions of great art, such as Van Gogh's, and golf courses.  I've always believed that golf course architecture is a fascinating combination of art and science.

If your's was the final word, I will miss checking in occasionally to learn more about the Pinehurst #2 and the views of those who know it either through study, personal observations, or both.  This went on much longer than I anticipated.  Didn't really address the original question, but perhaps a more important question emerged.  At any rate, it was fun, even when it got a bit gnarly.

One aside, you refer to Ross's style of "it llooks easy, plays harder".  That's an almost exact replication of a Walter J. Travis comment about his courses.

Ed
www.travissociety.com
   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

It wasn't my contention, it was the contention made in Dunlop's article.

As for greens remaining "static" throughout periods of topdressing and aeration, my contention would be that no matter what measures are taken, the greens will always be changing to some degree.  Even a concrete surface would change over a 40 year period.

Sven,

I would agree with that, the question is, "to what degree"

Obviously external influences tend to produce more significant changes.

So, one has to ask "how" changes occured, and were they subtle and imperceptable or dramatic and easily observed.

Another question is:  When did the changes occur ?  That question almost presumes that there was an intention to change the greens, in an organinzed pattern, with goals in mind, in a project like manner, whereas, subtle changes tend to occur randomly, on a non-planned basis.

I can't personally account for any change occuring prior to say 1958-1962 as I have no first hand experienece seeing or playing those greens prior to that time.

According to Dunlop White, no planned or orchestrated changes to the internal putting surfaces occurred until 1988, yet, photos seem to indicate that there were internal changes to the greens post 1936.

It has been said that Donald Ross tinkered with PH# 2 until the time of his death.
Do we know, for certain, if Ross altered or didn't alter, any of his greens subsequent to their initial grassing ?
from 1936-1948 ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

More from The Lurker:

I think this thread truly may be in that wonderful handful of the most interesting this website has ever had. We now have people virtually standing shoulder to shoulder (the computer Internet world) observing the very same things (albeit photographs) and coming away with different observations and interpretations. Isn't this what great art is supposed to be and intended to be? While in Philadelphia some years ago, I remember standing side by side with friends and family as we observed Vincent Van Gogh's traveling painting exhibition. It was just remarkable to me how people standing shoulder to shoulder could see and say such different and varied things about the same paintings, both in the details, and even in the over-all.

(For the record, I do acknowledge that the overall diversity of opinion amongst the participants on this thread about what they are seeing and interpreting in those old photographs may not be all that wide, as it seems most agree with each other, while Patrick Mucci and his green ink streaming seems to disagree with most).

Tom Paul,

You told us that the Tufts "skimped" on top dressing for years.

Others indicated that there was "excessive" top dressing for years.

Evidently, the others disagree with you.

I was merely pointing out the seemingly obvious contradiction

Thank you Ed Homsey and the participants in this thread for creating and airing such a fascinating subject. To me, this just strengthens my "Big World" theory on golf architecture----eg "Golf and its architecture is a great big thing and there really is room in it for everyone." (that tastes vary greatly and in golf architecture there really does need to be a very wide spectrum of types and styles to accommodate it all).

And thank you Uncle Donald Ross. In my life and golf career I have played on your courses perhaps more than the rest of the significant architects of the Golden Age combined (although coming from L.I. CBM/Raynor did give you a run for it with me and my family). I have played more of my golf on your Gulph Mills in Philadelphia, Gulf Stream in Gulf Stream, Florida and Seminole in Palm Beach than all the other courses and architects I've played combined. But through all that and over about thirty plus years, I have never considered you to be in that top category of the best of the best. But now I think I do put you right up there with the best of the best. I recognize that your basic architectural style is the "looks easy, plays harder" compared and contrasted to MacKenzie's "looks hard, plays easier." But perhaps that "looks easy, plays harder" style of yours just lulled me into some form of lack of proper and necessary observation/interpretation all these years, and I consequently just never really picked up on the inherent nuances in your architecture, both aesthetically and in play. It fascinates me now to consider that even if I played at scratch for a few decades I might've been making mistakes with even what I considered to be good and proper shots, and I never really figured out why! And this even given the fact that my father belonged through the years to six or seven of your courses and he basically never really gave any of them up (other than just moving and moving on).

So, Uncle Donald, I'm willing to say now I think you're a genius. To consider the adage---"Imitation is the highest form of flattery," they have now taken that idea to another level with you and your seminal Pinehurst #2-----they have evolved it and changed it to some things that you didn't create and perhaps didn't intend, but despite that the golf course has now become doubly iconic for a type of green that you may not have ever intended----but nevertheless----they are all STILL giving YOU the credit for it all, and they are even assuming that THIS is your ultimate style.

I know you are moldering in your grave, but, if THIS doesn't put a smile on your face, Uncle Donald Ross----what will?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I didn't intend to suggest that the photographer intentionally distorted the photo, only that lenses with different focal lengths can give different representations of the subject photographed.  We may disagree on this but I'm convinced that the spectators standing at the back of the green are sufficient evidence that the 2nd green in the late 1930s was not crowned as we currently understand the term. I do agree that the right side was built up but not as an attempt to "crown" the green. The buildup was a ridge that extended into the green separating the front left from the back right. Only a hint of the ridge exists today.

Craig,

I don't know what Ross's intent was, I only know what I observed and played in the late 50's early 60's and beyond, in conjunction with what I gleen from the photos.

In the second photo you posted, it seems to be taken from a much higher angle and much closer to the green, which would omit the land behind the green in terms of a reference point.

Perhaps our understanding or definition of "crowned" is part of our disagreement.

Some time ago I related a story from the early 60's where I hit a 2-iron to a back right hole location on the second hole.
A woman standing to the right side of the fairway in a rain slicker said to me. "Sonny, what did you hit there ?"  I said, "A 2-iron"
She replied, "I haven't seen a 2-iron hit like that since Jug MacSpadden back in 1938".  I remember going back to the hotel later than night and recalling the story to my dad and brother.  I distinctly remember the crowned/umbrella like configuration at the back right of the green.

Hence, it would appear that there may have been work performed on those greens subsequent to 1936 by Ross up until 1948 or in-house subsequent to 1948.

Again, I couldn't tell you what work took place prior to my visits, only that the internal contours of those greens didn't change from when I first played them.

An earlier post showed a similar photo to this one and indicated it was the 6th hole. In fact it's the 10th. This also shows a putting surface that begins at grade in the front. I don't have a current photo but I think anyone who has played the hole recently will confirm that the front of the green is raised well above grade.

That may have been the by-product of the Diamondhead work in the 70's.

Last night I was thinking about the areas in front of # 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14 and # 16.  Areas that didn't seem to have significant upslopes in front of the greens when I first played them.

Going back to the understanding of "crowned" look at the picture below.
Look at the raised mound at the back of the green behind the man putting.
Do you think that there's a gradual, sloped fall off to the surrounds behind that mound ?
Would that fit the concept of "crowned" greens ? 

Now look at the mound to the left of the caddy.
How does that tie into the surrounds ?
I would submit that those features form the basis for the concept of "crowned" greens for some.

[Chip Gaskins]

Though I am in the camp of "the greens of 2014 have little, if any, resemblance to what Ross built" I do want to ask the group, how about Seminole.  Their greens seem to be (I unfortunately have not played it  )quite doomed, correct?  Even though most of Ross's green aren't.

[Ryan Coles]

Pat

Did Pinehurst play more difficult in black & white?

Surely "the lurker" should post under his own name or not at all?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()