Ross Restoration Article: Kris Spence, Brian Silva and Pine Needles

[Dunlop_White]

Dave Droschak, an AP sports writer, just wrote a good story on golf course restoration in N.C. entitled "Finding Fossils."

Here, He focuses on the work done by rising architect, Kris Spence, at Mimosa Hills and the Grove Park Inn. He also delves into Silva's work at Hope Valley and interviews Kelly Miller about his intentions at Pine Needles.

http://www.nccbi.org/Golf/2004.golf.dir.index.htm

[Greg Holland]

Also, congratulations to Dunlop on his recent, well written article on the history of Old Town Club in the Triad Golf publication, which can be found at www.triadgolf.com.

[michael j fay]

This is a well written and informative article.

I played the Grove Park Inn golf course back in 1996 at the request of Dal Raiford. After I finished the 11th hole I returned to the pro shop. Dal asked for a candid opinion. I told him that it was the worst example of a Ross course I had ever seen and one of the worst golf courses I had ever played. He asked me to put that opinion in writing as he had 12 Board members that were not golfers. When Dal invited me back after Kris had done the work, I was hesitant. Frankly, I thought that a restoration would be impossible given the acreage the course had lost to both tennis courts and parking facilities. I liked Dal and really did not want to have to tell him something he really would not want to hear.

I could not have been more wrong. Grove Park Inn has been transformed. It looks great, plays great and is most enjoyable. It is the Phoenix of lost Ross courses.

Mimosa Hills is special and Kris Spence has dealt with it in a special way. Kris has taken the original plans and restored the layout by the numbers. Luckily the green surfaces had not been altered and they remain one of the best sets of greens in the State.

I toured Pine Needles with Kelly Miller and John Fought this winter and was quite impressed with the plans for this wonderful, peaceful golf course. The restoration of the course will be a success mainly because there is little being done to the original bones. The three most striking material changes are the new green on # 10 (not a Ross original), which is dictated by the need for additional length to allow the hole to be a real par 5, the repositioning of the tee on # 14 (which will return to its' original par of four) and the jacking back of the tee on # 15 which will make the hole a par 5, as it was at the outset. Fought and Miller have also made plans to create new back tees on # 2.4,6,7,11 and 12. These are already the longest par four holes on the course. In the cases of # 6,7,11 and 12 the tees will make the player carry the ball at least 285 yards to carry the crown in the fairway. Essentially, these holes, which have never been easy are now to be brutes. But do not fear, the Pine Needles people are not removing any tees so the course can still be played from the now challenging 6,700 yards.

There are a few bunker changes in the offing and I will be interested to see the depths in the bunkers. Currently, as Kelly Miller has said, the bunkers in many cases are above the levels of the greens. The tree removal has been carried out to some degree and it restores many of the play angles to the different holes.

I have always thought that the par three holes on this course are about as good as it gets and they will be improved by the restoration of the original bunkering.

In all three cases the greens on these courses will be stretched to recapture the head and shoulders of the original greens allowing for the return of  many of the most difficult pinning positions.

I have not seen the plans for Hope Valley but wish all those involved in the restoration the best. Hope Valley is a gem and has suffered from too many hands stirring the pot over the years. The key to that project is to return the greens to more Ross like size and slope. It is a difficult problem but if all goes well Hope Valley will have greens and bunkers that befit the marvelous layout.

[TEPaul]

michael j fay;

Thanks for that comprehensive and informative post. To be honest, I'm a little disappointed that a thread like this, with a post like yours fades so quickly into the back pages! I realize  many on here like to discuss rankings and ratings in a general sense, and other things, but I'm always disappointed when I see threads and posts like yours that deal specifically and knowledgeably with the details of restoration matters get passed over so easily and quickly.

You said;

"Currently, as Kelly Miller has said, the bunkers in many cases are above the levels of the greens."

Would you mind explaining exactly what you or Kelly Miller mean by this? Is this some kind of effect of "evolutionary build-up" (years of sand splash on top of the front surround of the bunker)? Or is there something else involved here?

[michael j fay]

Tom{

It is hard to say.

My thought is that the bunkers accumulated sand over the years and that the levels were raised. In that Pine Needles has run a womans golf school since 1959 (the oldest and best) the people at Pine Needles saw little need to dig out the bunkers. This is just a guess but I feel that by allowing the bunkers to remain pretty much easy-out, it allowed to boost the confidence of their students. That being said, the bunkers in the practice area are of normal depth and difficulty.
Certainly when the bunkers go back to the depths that were established by Ross (from 1927 through 1948, he played there quite a bit) the intracacies of these hazards will be much more effective.

[TEPaul]

"My thought is that the bunkers accumulated sand over the years and that the levels were raised."

michael:

I see--you're talking about the floors of the bunkers, not the surrounds specifically. it's an important distinction to make though as it's almost universally true that green-side bunkers, most particularly bunkers immediately fronting greens, do have their front faces build (get higher) over the years due to sand splash or sand cast!

But apparently you're just speaking of the floors that've apparently had sand added continuously over the years perhaps without ever probing the original floor depth during those times of sand addition.

Of course it's always interesting and important to know what the recovery depth of any bunker was as originally designed by Ross & Co--eg floor depth in relation to the face on the outgoing side!

But you know what those who know Ross generally say about his bunker depths in original design---so many of them called for bunker depth of 3 1/2 feet!!! You can see it on so many of his drawings---there're his and Walter Erving Johnson's notations all over the place of 3' 6"!!  

I've heard a really good Ross restoration architect such as Ron Prichard say if ever in doubt on sort of a normal Ross greenside bunkers just go with 3' 6" of depth. Of course by normal I'm not speaking of those fairly common Ross greenside bunkers that support green leveling on otherside too severe downhill grade. Those ones, for obvious reasons, tended to be built deeper and sometimes steeper. GMGC's left greenside bunker on #5 is a classic early example of this.

[michael j fay]

Tom:

I certainly mean that the constant addition of sand has raised the floors at Pine Needles and nearly everywhere else.

I have seen drawings for many Ross courses and the level of 3'6" pops up over and over again. At three and a half feet a greenside bunker is relevant. There is challenge and intimidation. I always thought that the bunkers that Tillinghast built at Winged Foot and Quaker Ridge where the depths are 6-8 feet are the most effective bunkering in the game.

My feeling is that a greenside bunker should be deep enough and difficult enough to discourage the player from using the bunker as a bailout. Certainly a foot and a half deep bunker is a better place to play from than 4" of Kentucky bluegrass rough.

In my Ross travels (209 courses and counting) I have seen far too many bunkers that are too shallow. My feeling is that green chairmen over the years have favored piling excess sand in the greenside bunkers to make egress simpler.

Personally, I love the bunkers that have were built by Raynor at many courses (Fishers and Yale in particular) and Tillie at many of his courses. The depth and difficulty actually make them hazards. Ross greenside bunkers at 3'6" also fall in this category.

Some of the trick bunkers on newer courses really go against my grain, especially those that can produce a significant downhill lie into a slope-away green. My major gripe with these is that two balls hit into the same bunker can produce a flat or uphill lie and a downhill lie. Although this is rub of the green, it is rewarding two badly played shots in two completely different manners. Scatalogical results created by the non-participating Golf Architect should be avoided.

[TEPaul]

"Scatalogical results created by the non-participating Golf Architect should be avoided."

I love it!

That's OK michael, we've become somewhat more blunt on Golfclubatlas.com in the last few years---if you want to call those architects' results just plain shitty--that's no problem.

Interesting what you say about bunkering where one can randomly get a flat, uphill or downhill lie vs what you said about Raynor bunkering and some of their depths.

Personally, I'd willingly accept any bunkering that's just plain "iffy" and random and that sure is true of many of Raynor's bunkers, particularly after some recent restorations by Brian Silva. The deal is if the ball ends up too close to the face any golfer just has a real problem and the faces aren't just deep they're nearly vertical compared to the types and styles of bunkers of most other architects.

If you just happen to be up against an almost vertical Raynor wall in a greenside bunker, I say "So what"? Next time you'll probably remember that and pay a good deal more attention. Some of the Raynor course memberships are having a bit of a hard time accepting this but give them time---they'll get used to it!  

[michael j fay]

Tom:

While we on the topic of bunkering I must say that I have seen quite a number of "classic courses" mostly Ross that have lost what I call "bounce bunkers".

What I mean are the bunkers that were semi cross bunkers 20 to 60 yards short of the green. The principle of the "bounce bunkers" was to carry the ball over the bunker and allow it to bounce to the green surface. Of course this style of play was a great deal more common in pre-irrigation days, so I do not think that the startegy is still there in many cases.

The part I bemoan is that these bunkers are true hazards. They require much more skill and finesse than any greenside bunker. We have a few of these at Wampanoag and the shot that they demand will gag a maggot.

In that this is a site for Classics I thought I would stick to Greek in my descriptive terms.

[A.G._Crockett]

Michael J Fay
I posted on the Hope Valley renovation shortly after Xmas; I played it the week before Christmas for the first time since it reopened, after many rounds on the previous incarnation.

Without rewriting all of that, Silva did exactly what you wrote; he returned the greens to their original sizes, and did a beautiful job on the bunkers, including removing several that had been added over the years.  Generally, however, the greens have a bit less "internal" contour than before to allow for more pin placements, and added contour on the edges with ample chipping areas.  The routing of the course, which is just as Ross laid it out, is wonderful.  I'll be anxious to see the course after some grow-in this summer.

[Scott_Burroughs]

I heard from a reliable source (unless he misheard me, which is entirely possible considering he was in a lumber store) that the par 3 3rd will be altered so a shot on the front left of the green will no longer roll back into the bunker.  If that's what was originally Ross, so be it.  I like it as it currently is.

[TEPaul]

"The part I bemoan is that these bunkers are true hazards. They require much more skill and finesse than any greenside bunker."

michael;

I think I get what you mean by this but perhaps not. Those bunkers you refer to as "bounce bunkers" probably are more in the nature of true hazards but not necessarily because of their architecture, height or depth. The on-going fact is that for most every level of player recovering from a distance of 20 to 60 yards is a helluva lot more difficult and dicey than recovering from a green-side bunker! I've always considered myself a good bunker player but from those distances (20-60 yds) I'm always indecisive about whether to clean chip something outta there or put some muscle into blasting something!

Have you ever notice how often Ross placed those bunkers you call "bounce bunkers" into upgrading topography where the golfer can see clearly the ground between the bunker and the green while Flynn generally put those bunkers on down-grading topography where the ground between the bunker and the green is hidden creating the deception that the bunker is much closer to the green?

[Pete Buczkowski]

Michael:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts about GP and PN.  Pine Needles is one of my favorite courses.  

If you are willing, I would like to hear your thoughts on:  
- the flattening of the front of #5 green, and
- the raising of several greens by 1-2 feet

The second point has me concerned, because the current green configurations only fall off in certain areas of the greens, not all the way around.

If I recall correctly, Fought is rebuilding every green to USGA specs but only relocating the green on 10 (hopefully he will properly restore those contours because that's a wonderful green).

Thanks,

Pete

[Pete Buczkowski]

I heard from a reliable source (unless he misheard me, which is entirely possible considering he was in a lumber store) that the par 3 3rd will be altered so a shot on the front left of the green will no longer roll back into the bunker.  If that's what was originally Ross, so be it.  I like it as it currently is.

Scott:

Here's a link to the plan for #3:

http://www.pineneedles-midpines.com/albums/PineNeedlesHoleDrawings/PNR3single.sized.gif

It looks like the front portion of the green will be removed, but the front left bunker will be moved with it.  As far as the countouring, it isn't specific about that, but it looks like he will preserve the ridge and that balls will roll into that front left bunker.

Pete

[michael j fay]

To my knowledge, the # 5 green is going to be left as is. I asked and was told that it was considered but the decision was to not change the green.

I have said before that I feel that the # 5 hole is one of the very best par 3 holes in the world. Everything about the hole appeals to me, the slight offset nature tee to green, the multitude of differing shots that can be hit from the tee. The fillpad and green complex is subtle and enormously clever.

Kelly and John Fought are going to make the third green smaller in the front and expand back to the shoulders in the rear. The false front right will be significantly removed. As for the original design allowing for balls to be sucked back into the bunker, I really do not know, but I have always had a difficult time generating that much spin with a mashie niblick or a niblick.

This hole has been photographed incessently over the years and I have not seen any change in the green-bunker relationship.

[T_MacWood]

Michael
Is Grove Park Inn a Ross course? From what I understand it is/was a Willie Park-Jr. design -- is there information on what exactly Ross did at GPI (because I haven't found anything)?

What about the theory that bunkers actually increase in depth as the years go by as a result of sand build up--TE often cites Merion as an example?

What do you make of Brad Klein's theory that Pinehurst #2's greens elevated over the years due to regular top dressing, the result would be an increase the effective depth of the greenside bunkering, no?

[michael j fay]

I feel that both Tom and Brad are correct, to a degree.

Pinehurst # 2 has a set of greens unlike any others I have seen in my Ross travels. On no other Ross course is there as much surface without as much usability. I have seen a many Ross courses where the topdressing has changed the elevations enough to change the approach shots to the greens (i.e. made the bump and run less viable). At the Brunswick Country Club in Georgia, the topdressing has made the greens so tiny and unpinable that the course needs to dig out nearly 2 feet of old topdressing to get the greens back to playable.

Pinehurst #2 was last fully redesigned by Ross in 1936, but he lived there and tinkered with it until he died in 1948. I think the product of today is a marraige of Ross's tinkering and substantial topdressing.

As for bunker depths, Tom is right, but many clubs dealt with this in different ways. Some allowed the bunkers to get deeper and others just piled in new sand.

[Dunlop_White]

M J Fay and Tom Paul,

Ordinarily, Donald Ross' fairway bunkers seem to tilt-in or tip-into the fairways at certain angles, typically in conjunction with prevailing landforms. At Pine Needles, Fought's bunker drawings do not correspond?  Fought has their shapes running-with or parallel to the fairways instead. Additionally, Fought did not bring any of these bunkers out of the rough on his drawings? Moreover, other bunkers, which are to be shifted forward, in effect will be taken were away from their natural position/landform.

It's reassuring to hear that they aren't going to alter the green on Hole 5... Originally, Fought was going to build-up the front/right of the green, thus "softening" the slope, to develop usable front pin locations. Here, grading-out and integrating it with the approach would have been extremely difficult, if they cared about retaining any sort of ground game entrance -- a needed option from such a distance for many players.

On Hole 14, however, reverting back to a par 4 is not a problem; however, moving the tee up to the left, essentially straightening out the hole, just for distance, is a bad idea. The angle from the  current teebox presents one of the best strategic shot values, perhaps in the state. Here, you may choose to carry diagonal cross bunkers and bite off as much as you please. Diagonal cross bunkers are among the best strategical elements in classical golf architecture.... and these will simply become common, lateral hazards if they straighten this hole out for distance.

Simply a bad compromise!!

[T_MacWood]

Michael
Assuming the top dressing theory is true, one could summize the greens at Pine Needles have been elevated by a similar percentage (when were grass greens constructed at PN?). That phenomenon along with the sand splashing creating an increasingly larger face would seem to run contrary to your idea that those bunkers are shallower. Did they dump sand in those bunkers at a faster pace than the other factors took hold?

Do you know when and what Ross did at the Grove Park Inn (if anything)?

[TEPaul]

"What about the theory that bunkers actually increase in depth as the years go by as a result of sand build up--TE often cites Merion as an example?"

Tom MacW:

That's no theory. Photographic comparison from various eras shows this without question--on courses all over the place. Sand splash build up or "evolutionary build-up" on the tops of the outgoing faces of bunkering (front part of the bunker surround) particularly green fronting bunkering such as #8 and #13 at Merion not only shows this but the extreme extent of it over the years. Obviously green fronting bunkering builds up more than others as these bunkers get far more play. The extent of it over the years can sometimes be seen if FEET. Basically what evolutionary build-up is daily top-dressing (sand) from golfers!!

One could always say that the floor of the bunkers got deeper than the original floors but in almost no case would this happen without a total rebuild or redesign (or generally one would be coring into the old sub-floor drainage--if it had that). And anyway on holes such as Merion's #8 and #13 proof of this sand cast build up can be seen from the green immediately over the bunker face and how built up that's become as well over the years.

It's a fact that originally the greens of #8 or #13 were flat to sloping gently towards the fronting bunkers on these holes while today there're significant downslopes away from the fronting bunkers creating in playability what I call a "turbo boost" if the player happens to land his approach in this section just over the fronting bunker. Basically the ball tends to scoot to the back of the green!

When I mentioned that the bunkers of Merion had gotten deeper I didn't mean over an extended period of time I meant in the recent Merion bunker project. The club decided to core down to the original bunker floors (I have no idea how much sand had accumulated above those original floor depths over the years) and to not only leave the evolutionary build-up on most of the bunker outgoing surrounds but in some cases to even increase it somewhat in the bunker project.

Obviously what this did is make Merion's bunkers generally much deeper and steeper and more difficult to play out of than they were going into that bunker project or probably at any other time previously.

The bunker project sanding, though, was a bit of a give-back in playability. Before the Merion bunker project took place almost all the bunkers had very little loose sand in them creating bunker sand that was incredibly hard packed. Generally good players are pretty adept at how to play out of really hard packed sand but poor players really struggle with that condition.

So what Merion did net-wise, in my opinion, is make the playability of the sand a bit easier but they increased the difficulty of recovery architecturally by generally adding far more depth and steepness to their bunkers than they had previously!