[Brett Morris]

I noticed this last night on their site.  Hope to be there following the GIS show in Orlando next year.

Coore & Crenshaw to Renovate & Restore Pinehurst #2
January 3, 2010

Work to begin in late February, 2010

Work will begin in February, as the Coore & Crenshaw team, led by associate Toby Cobb, will begin a restoration and renovation project at Pinehurst #2, the site of the 2014 Men\'s and Women\'s U.S. Opens.  The scope of the work is still being determined by Bill Coore & Ben Crenshaw, but will include restoring native grasses to areas that have been grassed and irrigated over the years.  Bunker enhancement and restoration will take place in fairways, and to a limited extent, around certain greens.   The famed green complexes on this Ross gem will not be altered or affected during this project.    Pinehurst #2 will, for the most part, not be closed during the work, which is expected to continue into 2011.

[Alex Miller]

Poor Rees Jones...  

[Jay Flemma]

Ross greens?  I remember Tom Doak writing an article back in 2005 that Ross wouldn't recognize those greens...link someone?

[Chris Buie]

I don't have a link for you right now Jay, but I do have an image.  I'm pretty certain it is the 2nd green on #2.  The green as it is today does not look very much like that.  I've seen other images of #2 greens as Mr. Ross did them.  They are quite similar to this green - a lot of very interesting undulations that aren't there now. 
The Tuft's Archives in Pinehurst has innumerable images of #2 through the years.  I think it is great that C & C are going to lend their deft touch to #2.  However, I do wish they would try to replicate the greens as Ross had them.   Since I don't work in that field it may be unrealistic to push for that to happen.  Not sure.  Others on this forum may be able to give a good answer as to whether or not replicating the old greens is feasable.

[Dan Chapman]

I am looking forward to seeing the changes that are made.

[Kyle Henderson]

While the current greens are certainly much different from when Ross last saw them, are the "new" green complexes not outstanding in their own right? I haven't played the course, but everyone I speak to raves about the greens on #2. Plus, the current contours are iconic. Any attempt to change them had better be clearly for the better.

[Jon Heise]

While the current greens are certainly much different from when Ross last saw them, are the "new" green complexes not outstanding in their own right? I haven't played the course, but everyone I speak to raves about the greens on #2. Plus, the current contours are iconic. Any attempt to change them had better be clearly for the better.

Kyle, you just typed out pretty much exactly what I was thinking.  While it would be kind of neat to see the "original" greens... just... nahhhh.

[jim_lewis]

In my opinion, lots of folks on this site make too much to do about to what extent the greens on #2 can (or can not) be attributed to Donald Ross. I am a major Donald Ross fan, but frankly, I don't care if the greens were designed by Barney Fife. They are some of the best greens in the world and only a fool would make major changes in them. C&C are not fools.

[Chris Buie]

It's interesting because there is another thread on the current first page here about Ross greens being restored.  You can decide for yourself whether restoring Ross greens is something "only a fool" would do.  Mr. Hetzel clearly thought the restored Ross greens at Brunswick were fantastic. 

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=gh7o6jdg9r9j9q546gq8fkj070&topic=40556.0

[Jason Topp]

Golf Architecture Volume 5 has a good article outlining how the greens have changed over time.

[Jay Cox]

It's interesting because there is another thread on the current first page here about Ross greens being restored.  You can decide for yourself whether restoring Ross greens is something "only a fool" would do.  Mr. Hetzel clearly thought the restored Ross greens at Brunswick were fantastic. 

Whether a restoration is worthwhile depends on the value of what one is restoring and on the value of what currently exists.  The current No. 2 greens are fabulous and, in my understanding, essentially unique in the world of golf.  From the pictures and descriptions of the Ross greens at No. 2, it would be a no-brainer to restore some version of them if what currently existed were not otherwise notable -- i.e., if No. 2's current greens were no better than Brunswick's pre-restoration.  But it very well might be more of a shame to lose the current No. 2 greens than it is to have lost the originals.

[Jud_T]

Well, they're clearly not touching the greens, so it's sort of a moot point isn't it?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()