Pinehurst 2 Greens

[Ira Fishman]

I know that the greens are not as Ross designed them. Bill Coore discusses that point in the Fried Egg video. I also am aware that many attribute the saucer aspect to top dressing and sand build up. That certainly makes sense to certain extent. However, there must have been some degree of fall offs around the edges for the build up to create such a dramatic effect. More importantly, it would not seem to explain the brilliance of the interior contours.


Is there a definitive history of the greens and who designed/redesigned them over the years?


Thanks.

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
I remember talking to Geoff Shackelford on the phone after the “restoration”.  He said C&C were not allowed to alter those greens.  Geoff and I both talked about how those greens have become “representative” of Ross greens even though Ross wouldn’t recognize them.  Pete Dye’s story about how those greens evolved to what they are today resides in multiple locations on this website.  I am sure someone here knows how to find it. 

[Ira Fishman]

Mark,


You consistently have made the same assertion that PH2 are not “Ross” greens. However, we are members at Hope Valley in Durham, NC which was built in 1926. The almost full Ross graph paper drawings are intact in the Tufts Archives which show green complexes with substantial fall offs around the edges. Yes, they have become more pronounced over time, but on the other hand, renovations have flattened the interior contours.


Hence, one of my reasons for asking if anyone actually knows the history of the greens at PH2 as opposed to lore and supposition.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

Ira:


Unfortunately, no one writes a history of something that is growing half an inch per year for 20 years, which is what I believe happened to the greens at Pinehurst #2 in the 1950s and 60s.    There isn't anyone around who says that the greens were renovated or changed over that period.  That's not to say they didn't fall off to the sides originally, but they didn't do it as severely. 


Pete Dye was adamant that those greens were not that high when he played the course regularly in the 1940s, and that topdressing was the means of change.  I believe him because I saw what happened to Yeamans Hall over the same period; they shrunk their greens before the buildup started, and over time the smaller area became built up a foot above the rest of the green pad.


The contractor Ed Connor did rebuild the greens c. 1990 when they were converted to bent grass; he mapped the greens as they were then, and tried to preserve them as best he could, although he admitted at least one deliberate change to me, on the 18th.


Pinehurst Resort used to deny that anything had changed, because they sell Donald Ross's legacy so hard that they didn't want to admit the course had evolved after Ross's death.  They don't deny it anymore, but they don't bring it up much, either.

[Ira Fishman]

Tom,


I am not carrying a torch for Ross or anyone else. But Mr. Dye's explanation may account for the severity of the fall offs (as noted in my OP), but it doesn't seem to account for the interior contours or the original exterior shaping. Both got there somehow. It sounds as if the reasons may be lost to history.


Ira

[Charlie Goerges]

Someone has explained this before, but I can't remember the answer... But why did this happen here (and Yeamans and probably some other places too) but not absolutely everywhere?

[Tom_Doak]

Someone has explained this before, but I can't remember the answer... But why did this happen here (and Yeamans and probably some other places too) but not absolutely everywhere?

It happens more often than we talk about.  I would estimate the putting surfaces at Crystal Downs are at least 6-8 inches higher than when I first saw it, because of their sand topdressing program over that time.  They do verify and remove some material, but they add more than they subtract.  Many of the collars on the low sides of the greens now have a sharp edge to them that wasn't there previously.  I have seen the same thing at Cypress Point.  And we saw the same at SFGC when we rebuilt their greens . . . we had to take off several inches of soil there to physically remove the nematodes, and when we'd done that we realized we were probably back to the original grade!


But it was much worse at Yeamans Hall and Pinehurst #2, because those courses had common bermudagrass greens back in the day, which was very coarse and bumpy.  The only way to get a smooth putting surface was to topdress even more than northern courses do.  This would also apply to Seminole and Augusta National, but those places close for the summer, and they've had the $$$ to rebuild their greens multiple times over the past 75 years.  Yeamans Hall didn't have the $, and Pinehurst didn't want to close the course that brings everyone to town.

[Mark_Fine]

Thanks for chiming in Tom. 


I mentioned a couple years ago how much green contours had changed primarily for sand splash at an old Gordon course we renovated.  In certain areas we removed over two feet of sand to find the original grades.  If you play that course today, you will notice a dramatic change to the edges of the greens. 


Back to Pinehurst #2; I absolutely love that golf course, including the evolved greens.  However, I will cringe every time the announcers on TV mention “the famous Donald Ross turtlebacks”     

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I asked at last year's ASGCA meeting whether topdressing could really build up greens as much as is often told and to a person I was told stuff along the lines of "nah, it'd take decades to add even an inch or two." But… perhaps they were talking only about greens now, not Pinehurst in the 1950s to 80s…

As it stands, I'm not entirely sure what to believe. 

[Mark_Fine]

Erik,
There is this tool called a soil probe 


Obviously they probably wouldn’t be too happy if you poked around on #2’s greens with one of them but you can learn a lot with that tool.


If you are dumping literally tons and tons of sand on your greens each year, where do you think it goes?  It is not water 

[Craig Sweet]

How much sand is used yearly for top dressing is a record every super keeps....and it is often broken down by green... It should be an easy find.

[Tom_Doak]

I asked at last year's ASGCA meeting whether topdressing could really build up greens as much as is often told and to a person I was told stuff along the lines of "nah, it'd take decades to add even an inch or two." But… perhaps they were talking only about greens now, not Pinehurst in the 1950s to 80s…

As it stands, I'm not entirely sure what to believe. 

Maybe you should believe me.  I know it when I see it, and I’ve spent a lot more time around great courses the past 40-odd years than most of the people you spoke to.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

If you are dumping literally tons and tons of sand on your greens each year, where do you think it goes?  It is not water 

Courses take plugs out, sometimes. And I've seen some pretty thin layers of topdressing applied.

Maybe you should believe me.  I know it when I see it, and I’ve spent a lot more time around great courses the past 40-odd years than most of the people you spoke to.

Like I said, they may have been talking more about recent times, not a course top-dressed in the 1940s onward. But, overall, yes I can appreciate how topdressing adds height, just as I can appreciate how easily greens can shrink over time from slight mowing line movements…

[Craig Disher]

One think I saw when I first looked at the aerials was the left green-side bunker on #1. The aerial was taken in December when the sun was low. The bunker has no shadow in it and given the direction of the tree shadows, there should have been if the bunker was even half as deep as it is now. An earlier ground level photo of the 2nd green taken from the rear shows the pronounced ridge on the front right but the gallery standing behind the green next to the putting surface appear to be almost above the level of the green. I've heard stories that the greens were rebuilt in the 70s and accepted that as the explanation for their current height. If someone would take vertical drone photos of a few greens in December, especially the first, it could be possible to actually establish how much they actually gained in height.

[Sean_A]

One think I saw when I first looked at the aerials was the left green-side bunker on #1. The aerial was taken in December when the sun was low. The bunker has no shadow in it and given the direction of the tree shadows, there should have been if the bunker was even half as deep as it is now. An earlier ground level photo of the 2nd green taken from the rear shows the pronounced ridge on the front right but the gallery standing behind the green next to the putting surface appear to be almost above the level of the green. I've heard stories that the greens were rebuilt in the 70s and accepted that as the explanation for their current height. If someone would take vertical drone photos of a few greens in December, especially the first, it could be possible to actually establish how much they actually gained in height.

Looking at old photos it does seem like greens have been changed. Some seem to have lost the flow to the fairways and are more abruptly raised these days. This suggest sand build up plus green shrinkage.

Ciao

[Charlie Goerges]

It happens more often than we talk about.

Thanks for that, and the above is especially interesting to me. Maybe we pick on Pinehurst #2 a little too much as a group on this account. Even if it's the most-affected course in this way, it seems there are probably many more that have been similarly affected.

[Peter Sayegh]

Pinehurst Resort used to deny that anything had changed, because they sell Donald Ross's legacy so hard that they didn't want to admit the course had evolved after Ross's death.  They don't deny it anymore, but they don't bring it up much, either.

Same could be said for #1 and #3.

[Joe Wandro]

The green on hole 11 (on No.2) is more or less at grade. It stands out from the set for that reason. The greens on holes 1 and 3 seem especially high.


If top-dressing is the reason for the buildup, why is 11 less effected? Is it possible that some greens were just built up more on at No 2. from several renovations from 1950-2000?

[Mark_Fine]

#2 was renovated by the Jones (RTJ Sr and Rees) in 1974 and before the 1999 Open. This included the greens.  They don’t talk much about what was done regarding them we do know short grass was introduced over time in many areas.  This is what allowed Kaymer to almost exclusively use his putter around the greens to win the Open.


Again there are always exceptions, but crowned greens like at #2 are not representative of Ross’ original work. The closest I have seen might be at Oyster Harbors in MA where I had the privilege to work with the club several years ago.  OH has a great set of original greens some which rival those at #2 for their rolloffs. 

[Tom_Doak]

#2 was renovated by the Jones (RTJ Sr and Rees) in 1974 and before the 1999 Open. This included the greens.  They don’t talk much about what was done regarding them we do know short grass was introduced over time in many areas. 

The 1999 renovation didn't change the greens significantly; many of us were around for that!


It's possible they raised some greens a bit in 1974, but it's hard to believe they didn't document it if they did.

[Ira Fishman]

I am going to try my question again. I understand why posters are focused on the crowned nature of the greens—it is what is most famous about PH2. And top dressing and sand splash makes sense to explain how the crowning became so pronounced. As noted in my OP, Hope Valley greens ran off at the edges according to the original drawings and those too have become more pronounced.


However, on my three plays, it was the brilliance of the interior contours that impressed on my mind the most. Someone had to design them.


Thanks.


Ira

[Charlie Goerges]

it was the brilliance of the interior contours that impressed on my mind the most. Someone had to design them.

Ok, so given that they raised up a lot over the years, would the internal contours have remained consistent such that we could credit Ross (or some other designer) with them?

[Tony Ristola]

I know that the greens are not as Ross designed them. Bill Coore discusses that point in the Fried Egg video. I also am aware that many attribute the saucer aspect to top dressing and sand build up. That certainly makes sense to certain extent. However, there must have been some degree of fall offs around the edges for the build up to create such a dramatic effect. More importantly, it would not seem to explain the brilliance of the interior contours.


Is there a definitive history of the greens and who designed/redesigned them over the years?


Thanks.

It was a Ron Whitten piece titled Ross Wouldn't Recognize these Greens (If memory serves correctly).


According to the story (Dye related), the greens were built up due to topdressing, and they had a dozer operator soften the edges... obviously and unfortunately they only topdressed the greens and not the surrounding slopes.


Recalled correctly: https://archive.golfdigest.com/article/2005/6/1/donald-ross-wouldnt-recognize-these-greens
https://archive.golfdigest.com/article/2005/6/1/donald-ross-wouldnt-recognize-these-greens

[Mark_Fine]

Tony,
That article which I recall reading when it was first written is about as detailed explanation as I have seen.  It is exactly what most of us have been saying for quite sometime - Ross would not recognize those greens at all.


As far as the internal contours; I honestly can’t recall them factoring much at all on my mind.  What I focused on most was always playing to the center of those greens and if I missed, miss short as missing long or to the sides was real trouble.  The greens pitch back to front and play MUCH smaller than they appear.  Almost any shot remaining on a #2 green is a darn good shot regardless of any internal contour.  The next challenge after that is don’t putt off the green when lagging 

[Bret Lawrence]

Ira,


Donald Ross didn’t install grass greens at Pinehurst No. 2 until the 1930’s. Perhaps this is why his greens at Pinehurst are a little different than his early Golden Age work? Pete Dye would have seen the greens within the first 10 years they were constructed.  The fact that Pete recognized the greens as being built up with topdressing would make me think Ross would still recognize his greens, but would likely come to the same conclusion.


Pinehurst hosted the 1936 PGA Championship and one article mentioned: “ Especially interesting were the approach contours Ross put in when he remodeled the greens for grass.”  Have you checked with the Tufts Archives to see if they have Ross’ original green plans for Pinehurst No. 2? I see they have a set of green plans from 1962, but they are clearly not Ross’ original plan.  The 1962 plans show no internal contour or slope, just the square footage. 


Other old articles I ran across mentioned Pinehurst experimenting with bent grasses.  If Pinehurst knew about these old articles, they may have never attempted to change the greens to bent in 1999.  I have never played Pinehurst No. 2 so I cannot comment directly on the greens, but I thought I would pass this historic information along to you.


Bret