[Lyndell Young]

Is the Land/Topo for #4 really the best of all the Pinehurst Courses?

[Craig Disher]

It's superior to #2's ground but I think not as good as that on the original #3. The lake on #4 took away some great land but what was left is pretty good.

[Tom_Doak]

Is the Land/Topo for #4 really the best of all the Pinehurst Courses?

If it was, you'd think Donald Ross would have built something on it sooner.


Also, if it was, you'd think someone would have gotten a better course out of it before now.

[Blake Conant]

Sometimes what's below the surface matters more.

[Lyndell Young]

Please elaborate Blake

[Blake Conant]

no. 4 has a lot of clay.  The topography may be a bit more undulating than other parts of the property, but the soils seem to be better the closer you are to the clubhouse and on the other side of the tracks. 

[Lyndell Young]

I understand what your saying Blake, also if that is the case where the sand meets the clay tends to produce drainage issues, making the sandy waste areas harder to manage.

[Craig Disher]

This is the earliest - and maybe the latest - view of Ross's #4, taken in 1943. The green hash marks show where the current lake would be located. Ross routed the holes around the most severe topography, negotiating it by placing two par 3s over the feeder stream. At this point it appears that the back 9 had been abandoned and only the front nine was in use, still with sand greens. Is it clear why Ross selected #2 for his attention rather than #4? Could it be as simple as the distance #4 was from the clubhouse and that it didn't pass within a few feet of his house? If the attention he paid to #2 had been directed to #4, would it have been a better course? I think it's obvious that the topography was much better.

[Paul Rudovsky]

Blake hit the nail on the head.  The drainage on #4 does not compare to the drainage on #2 even after all of Gil's work.

[Craig Disher]

Blake hit the nail on the head.  The drainage on #4 does not compare to the drainage on #2 even after all of Gil's work.

Is this true over the entire course? In the middle of this very wet year I played both on adjacent days and found wet areas on both courses that were about the same. One significant improvement I found on the new #4 is that the areas around the greens which seemed to be always wet are much dryer.

[Philip Hensley]

Does this mean topography is overrated in golf course design?

[Adam_Messix]

Craig


I played both 2 and 4 last weekend after the heavy rains.  There were a few damp spots on the fairways but not many and ponds in several bunkers.  A day later, the fairways of 4 were soggier than 2 the day previous.  There was no standing water in the bunkers on 4 and the areas around the greens were very playable. 

[Craig Disher]

I guess it's possible that 2 and 4 have different soil structures but another possibility is that adding the lake affected the underground drainage and that the property drained much better when Ross's course was built. Watching the construction of 4 I noticed the soil being excavated appeared to be mostly sand.

[Tom_Doak]

I guess it's possible that 2 and 4 have different soil structures but another possibility is that adding the lake affected the underground drainage and that the property drained much better when Ross's course was built. Watching the construction of 4 I noticed the soil being excavated appeared to be mostly sand.

Usually you add a pond in a wet area to consolidate the drainage, and help dry up the area around it.

[Paul Rudovsky]

Phil--


I do not think my earlier comment means topography is over rated but it does mean it is one factor among many...and it does not, by itself, determine drainage. It certainly is a major major factor in terms of creating a variety of (and interesting) stances and shots.  But drainage is heavily a function of the soil...sand (and the particular characteristics of the sand) vs. clay or even underlying rock (think the last few holes around the quarry at Black Diamond in FL).  If #2 (which is pretty flat except in a few areas like #13 and #18) sits on 50 -100 feet of sand base it will drain very well but if #4 has areas that have only a few feet of sand before hitting clay...they could have issues.


There is no question in my mind that #4's drainage is far better than it was before the recent work, but that does not mean not is as good as #2's drainage...it may be as good as #2 in certain areas but it may have areas where there are issues.


And in terms of courses with good, excellent or superb drainage...there are degrees etc.  I think the best draining course i have seen is Sand Hills (NE) and almost all of the true links tracks in GB&I are superb.


Paul

[Paul Rudovsky]

and i think the topography at #4 is better than #2's...by far

[Philip Hensley]

and i think the topography at #4 is better than #2's...by far

Rudo,


I agree with you. And I was attempting to echo TD’s point about why hasn’t a better course been built there? Ross, Jones, fazio, and Hanse have had a go at it, and #2 is far superior.


The recent changes are much improved.

[Craig Disher]

I guess it's possible that 2 and 4 have different soil structures but another possibility is that adding the lake affected the underground drainage and that the property drained much better when Ross's course was built. Watching the construction of 4 I noticed the soil being excavated appeared to be mostly sand.

Usually you add a pond in a wet area to consolidate the drainage, and help dry up the area around it.

I understand that. My point was that adding the lake was probably accompanied with moving a great deal of soil and reshaping the area around it to create the course that followed. I haven't seen much information on the construction of the early reservoir and the much larger lake added later. The aerial shows Ross's 4 avoided the wetlands that became the lake and kept his holes on the higher ground surrounding it. I've never seen mention of any drainage deficiency on his course. It was closed soon after it was opened, primarily for economic reasons. But I think it's an open question whether it could have achieved the status of #2 if it had been given Ross's full attention. It was certainly on better ground.

[Philip Hensley]

Played #4 today. We’ve had a lot of rain, but not doubt it does not drain well.

[Matt MacIver]

The Carolinas have had a ton of rain this December, something like 3x average. How much would sandcappung the fairways help?  What’s an estimate of per/time cost, and how many treatments to be effective?  Annually for five years?  I know every course/soil/topography is different, but is sand capping a viable option - for some, all...?

[A.G._Crockett]

Several thoughts, shooting from the hip:
1. "Better" topography, in this case, means more elevation change, doesn't it?
2. With elevation change comes not only high spots, but low spots, and therefore less uniform drainage.
3. I'm no expert, but I find it difficult to put much stock in a huge difference in the amount of clay under #4 vs. #2; there are courses a lot farther away that are clearly sand-based in that area.  But maybe?
4. Most importantly, I'd suggest that nobody draw ANY conclusions about much of anything having to do with drainage in NC right now.  Since the beginning of September, there have been two hurricanes (one of which was historic and dumped 30" of rain on the Sandhills) a tropical storm, and an epic early December storm that left a FOOT of snow just slightly north of the Sandhills.  Courses in Piedmont NC are wetter than I've ever seen them, and I've seen them for a LONG time.  We all know the miracle of sand-based drainage, but this has just been ridiculous.  Wilmington surpassed 100 inches of rain in 2018, and surpassed it's average yearly rainfall July BEFORE Florence even hit; the year's rainfall was nearly double the average, and almost 20" above the previous record.  And there has been no letup in precipitation since the beginning of September, right up until now.  I've just never seen anything like it, and I've seen sand-based courses in this period of time that have just been bogs.

[Sean_A]

AG


So how much rain has hit the Sandhills this year? 


Happy New Year

[A.G._Crockett]

AG


So how much rain has hit the Sandhills this year? 


Happy New Year

Sean,

The totals at RDU airport are a foot or so over the averages; that's about 70 miles from Pinehurst, and the Sandhills were hit even harder by Florence than the Triangle was.

But the yearly numbers really don't tell the story, which is what has happened in the area beginning with Florence in early September and continuing relentlessly since then; I cannot overstate that.  The precipitation here has just been relentless, and we're going to get another inch or so over the next 48 hours.

It may well be that #4 has inferior drainage for a Sandhills course, which is perhaps a better standard than #2 anyway, but I don't think that can be evaluated very well right now.  It would be sort of like landing at RDU on Monday morning, Dec. 9, seeing a foot of snow, and then making assumptions about NC snowfall based on that.  It was the YEARLY average for snowfall in only 24 hours and it was in December, when it almost never snows in NC!

[ward peyronnin]

When I played there it was following by several days a large moisture event that washed out the 11th green at Old Town. Dunlop sent me a video and it was turrifying. The course was very soggy and i confess disappointing in that regard as felt that enough days had passed for proper drainage to do its work.
The southeast has been hammered this year especially during the two hurricanes

this a map showing the relative intensity of rainfall this year and you can see how blue NC is.

I liked a lot of the holes but there are enough indifferent ones such as 15 and 16  to compromise the overall design

[ward peyronnin]

Here is the link to that pic that failed to post
https://www.totallymap.com/?s=soggy+northeast

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()