"They are simply the best greens complexes any architect has ever built"....

« **on:** May 21, 2005, 08:31:50 AM »

so says Tom D in Golf magazine this month about #2.....

quite a statement...I knew they were REALLY good, but didn't realize Tom (and probably others) felt they were the BEST

anyone disagree?

what others would make a top 10 list?

« **Reply #1 on:** May 21, 2005, 08:38:57 AM »

These are better in my opinion:

Indian Creek
The Old Course
Merion
Pine Valley

I've never been, but its hard to imagine they're better than Augusta National

« **Reply #2 on:** May 21, 2005, 08:55:55 AM »

#2?
Each individually is a great green. As a set, there is a bit too much of a repetitive pattern among some of the greens. "Best Set". My favorite is probably #3 as a green complex. THAT certainly means that the others are clearly inferior.
chacun a son gout.

Let's add Plainfield to the mix, certainly making the top ten and top couple of Ross.

Wayne, can you think of any Flynn didn't do?

NGLA are a lot of variety and fun.

Grande Pines are really quite a set and certainly will be the least lofty course mentioned on this thread. $:-\$

« **Reply #3 on:** May 21, 2005, 09:06:32 AM »

#2's greens surely are very interesting ones "of a type" but saying they're the best anywhere is just one man's opinion. I'd rather see a set of greens on a golf course that offer more varied types and there sure are a number of courses that do that extremely well.

There is still the remaining question of whether the greens at Pinehurst #2 today are the very same slopes and contours that were there when Ross was alive. Not that that necessarily matters because greens are greens and it really doesn't matter exactly WHO it was who was responsible for the way they are now if they're really good today.

« **Reply #4 on:** May 21, 2005, 09:08:23 AM »

Bill,

Do you disagree with any of the ones I've mentioned? Flynn only designed 26 of the greens I mentioned on my list of 90 greens (of which you have not seen 18). I don't think Flynn in general designed the best sets of greens, maybe Maxwell, though I haven't seen enough to know. They are a lot better than most people give him credit for. Not overtly contoured but a complexity of slopes that make it difficult to read and perfect for members as it takes a lot time to know and fully appreciate. But I do hold the sets of greens I mentioned on the highest level. Kittansett, Philadelphia Country, Huntingdon Valley, Lancaster, Lehigh and Rolling Green are a notch below the ones mentioned.

« **Reply #5 on:** May 21, 2005, 10:31:21 AM »

Paul,

I'd add Hollywood's green complexes, probably the most vastly underrated set of green complexes anywhere.

They are sensational.

The internal contouring is great.
The feeding features of their perimeters are great and the variety in their approaches are terrific as well.

« **Reply #6 on:** May 21, 2005, 11:37:32 AM »

I would agree with the comments made so far and BillV's statement most fits my belief.

Their repetitive nature is somewhat unidimentional and once you have successfully found the internal areas of the greens the challenge is not nearly that of many other courses.

I agree with Bill that Plainfield's greens are better AS A SET and French Creek's are pretty good too.

In my mind other greens complexes in the US that are better

Winged Foot (both courses)
Pine Valley
Crystal Downs
Prairie Dunes
Friars Head
CC of Scranton (thanks Ian) _ I have to see Hollywood because Travis both picks great greensites and builds great greens - Westchester has a good set too and Round Hill.
NGLA
Chicago GC

« **Reply #7 on:** May 21, 2005, 11:41:23 AM »

one must visit spa in belgium to see simpson's 18 great greens with great slopes and false fronts. or mortfontaine's as well which are augusta esque in spots. Simpson built incredible complexes in Europe. But i think Winged Foot is the best at home.

« **Reply #8 on:** May 21, 2005, 01:03:12 PM »

As Pat alludes to above, when he mentions perimeters and complexes, and TD uses the word complex describing #3 Pinehurst, I'd like to see a more refined definition of what constitutes the "greens complex". Is the green complex a sliding scale depending on maintenence meld, whereby a green with rough cut uniformly immediately next to the fringe and surrounding greenside bunkers is the scope in one definition, while the complexes mowed fringe short and extending yards beyond the putting surfaces and fall-ins to the bunkers and on the outward sides can be thought of as part of a complex presented in that manner?

I haven't seen hardly any of those sighted above as great greens. But, can anyone compare the surrounds and their differences and say which are thought of as great that extend yards surrounding, and which are merely the description of great putting surfaces and only take into account "internal contouring" of the putting area?

« **Reply #9 on:** May 21, 2005, 01:18:12 PM »

RJ

Yes- if you include the immediate areas around to the greens including bunkering, grunch and falloffs then most I mentioned have more variety and interest then #2.

Pine Valley - gosh yes - just look at some of the photos - 5 steps off those greens you could shoot any number and the contours in the greens are wonderful.

Plainfield- better variety - better bunkering

Winged Foot - probably the best of all of them. Get in a bunker especially shortsided and you are dead. Absolutely marvelous internal contouring such that numerous putts can be approached from several different lines using the contours. You could spend a whole golf season just putting them from different spots to different hole locations.

Prairie Dunes - probably what #2 is thought of except for the internal poofs MAxwell incorporated into them. #2 lacks this from my memory of two trips. Prairie Dunes has the falloffs at the ewdges of many greens too.

Crystal Downs - I don't know this one as well but those greens are flat out crazy with more variety and interest then #2 in MHO.

Friars Head - what can I say? - this place is heaven and IMHO the best greens built since Prairie Dunes. I could spend days around #7 greens complex palying different shots. As a whole they are much more varied then #2.

NGLA and Chicago Golf - MacDonald and Raynor classics. NGLA especially has the internal contours and variety that #2 lacks and on top of that the bunkering is bolder, more punishing and gets your attention.

CC of Scranton - I'm curious is Ian would chime in here. I was so surprised at what a good set of greens these were. Perhaps I stretch the case with this example but everyone given a chance should go out to see this place.

« **Reply #10 on:** May 21, 2005, 01:26:59 PM »

Doesn't Rom Whitten have a very detailed article in this months Golf Digest showing that Ross didn't construct the current greens.

I remember some pictures showing the differences over the last 40 years and some quotes by Pete Dye.

« **Reply #11 on:** May 21, 2005, 04:08:35 PM »

Quote from: Wayne Morrison on May 21, 2005, 09:08:23 AM

Bill,
Lehigh a a notch below the ones mentioned.

NO WAY!!!!!

But Toronto GC's greens are better than Lehigh's CC.

Just how about two or three whole sets not done by Flynn, my good friend.

I'm just trying to keep you honest.

p.s. we are sooooooooooooooooooooooooo (© MattWardGolf) fortunate to play the places we do.

« **Reply #12 on:** May 21, 2005, 05:49:41 PM »

only seen them, haven't played them yet, but Kingsley's looked pretty good to me...

« **Reply #13 on:** May 21, 2005, 11:24:47 PM »

I'm always amazed at when topics like this are brought up, Oakmont is overlooked by everyone. I guess none of you have ever been to Pittsburgh?

Re: #2, don't we have to ask the question, who is really responsible for the green complexes? Seems like most of the recent articles/books/interviews have suggested if not stated that Ross wasn't responsible for the crowning, which is seemingly a big part of the greatness of the greens.

Were these green complexes planned or a happy accident?

« **Reply #14 on:** May 22, 2005, 04:01:20 AM »

George,

Funny you should mention Oakmont because it is one of Jeff Brauer's favourite courses and it would be interesting to his opinion about the greens there.

Brian

« **Reply #15 on:** May 22, 2005, 08:38:21 AM »

Given that the conventional wisdom is that #2's greens were "built" through years accumulation of top dressing, can we really give Ross much credit for their current shape and condition?

« **Reply #16 on:** May 22, 2005, 09:21:34 AM »

Rich,

Must we then dismiss all other "original" greens that have been under topdressing regimes? What constitutes greens that can still be credited to the architect of record?

Joe

« **Reply #17 on:** May 22, 2005, 09:53:10 AM »

Just played there 2 weeks ago for the first time, but I would have to rank Fenway's greens among the best I've played anywhere.

Andy Silis

« **Reply #18 on:** May 22, 2005, 11:38:05 AM »

Joe

Not necessarily, but I seem to recall that #2's greens have been particularly affected by this practice. If Ross planned "crowned" greens, fine, but if he didn't and they just "grew", well we can't really credit them to him, can we?

« **Reply #19 on:** May 22, 2005, 01:37:14 PM »

Rich,

For more complication to the question, I seem to remember that #2 laser mapped all their greens before they reconstructed them perhaps more than a decade ago, in an effort to make them as close as possible to where thay started. So, if the greens aren't even the originals after topdress augmentation, what are they now? Reproductions of augmented originals? Sounds a lot like Hollywood

Joe

News:

PThomas

wsmorrison

redanman

TEPaul

wsmorrison

Patrick_Mucci

Geoffrey Childs

NAF

RJ_Daley

Geoffrey Childs

Joel_Stewart

redanman

PThomas

George Pazin

Brian Phillips

ForkaB

Joe Hancock

Andy Silis

ForkaB

Joe Hancock