Undoubtedly my ignorance will be ruthlessly revealed by more knowledgeable on here, but I've been thinking that one way to appreciate the excellence, the perfection, of Pinehurst #2's design is to compare it to another design similar in philosophy that sadly no longer exists.

Does evidence of the "genius" of Donald Ross lie in the comparison of his masterpiece to what's happened with the job he lost?

Idle musing, but what if through some parallel-universe type miracle the course at ANGC was Pinehurst #2, instead of the one they built? A better way to put this billowy conjecture might be to think of it as ANGC buying Pinehurst #2 and establishing the club there, with #2 as its home course.

1. Would an ANGC #2 still be the #2 we know, or would it be substantially different due to "annual pressure" spoken of on here in reference to The Masters? Or different due to the hand of Roberts (maintenance) and subsequent chairmen (defend par + defend par from the tee)?  Do the changes at ANGC boil down to stewardship or design in the face of "golf pressure," and if the latter, would #2 have succumbed as well?

I ask this because Ross spent 40 years(!) changing his course, but since 1936 it achieved as close to a "stasis" as perhaps is possible for a course of its caliber, whereas ANGC looks and plays nothing like its original design.  Even if you allow a three or four-year window to account for Ross's changing of #2 through 1936 (i.e., start the clock on comparisons in 1937), the differences between ANGC (nee) and ANGC (today) remain significant.

Certainly #2 has been subjected to "golf pressure" but unlike ANGC has survived far more intact (IMHO!) -- and, to boot, in conditioning #2 has been presented for these tournaments without much difference from daily play, beyond green speeds (yes?).  It hosted an annual professional tournament (North/South Open -- and how bout the Tour Championship, too?) and has and / or will host professional and amateur "major" tournaments.

Which is not to say #2 has not been altered since 1936: it has been lengthened, its greens over the years narrowed due to mowing patterns (but then restored in the 1990s), and perhaps most notably its bunker faces grassed over shortly after WWII and greenside slopes shaved, according to Richard Mandell's fantastic book on Pinehurst.


2. Does the "persistence" of #2's design over ANGC's original design offer any indications of better execution of a specific philosophy of design? (Or, again, should we just play the "Blame It On Hootie" tape?) Both Ross and MacKenzie espoused a fascinatingly-similar design philosophy, as least as regards two of their masterpieces: Ross's #2 and Mac's Royal Melbourne:

A. According to Mandell, Ross in his changes to #2 sought fulfillment of two goals: first, increase the variety of shots demanded or as Ross said, focus on "an even greater science of the stroke."  Second, make the penalty fit the shot. (The further off line, the greater the penalty: Ross accomplished this on #2, as did Mac at RM, by narrowing the green approaches, moving sand bunkers closer to play and making surroundings more rolling.  And Ross did this in 1916!)  Both of these goals of course fit within a design philosophy of the "strategic" school: provide multiple routes to the green but vary the risk.

B. As to MacKenzie, his 9th Principle (written in 1920, four years after Ross's changes in 1916, so that Ross may not be said to have copied Mac's idea) reads: "There should be an infinite variety in the strokes required to play the various holes - viz. interesting brassie shots, iron shots, pitch and run-up shots." Also, much like Ross's belief that the penalty should fit the shot, MacKenzie positioned his bunkers hard against the greens in the belief that the proportion of the miss should equal the size of the challenge, and little pitch shots that had to clear a greenside bunker and stop on the green were of greater difficulty than shots that landed in the bunkers.

And of course both #2 and the original ANGC borrowed from TOC: large greens, wide landing areas.


3. Would #2 be regarded differently (read: better) were it exposed to the world via an annual televised tournament and couched in ritual highly revered by the tribe of golfers? (I say yes, for the subtlety of design may demand many repeated playings or viewings for viewers to appreciate the play of the hole, as well as the "mis-play" of the hole.)

Mark

Phil,

Thanks. Apologies for these unabashedly-leading questions: (please consider them, they are not meant as "intellectual bullying!")

1. #2 sits on sandy soil and the greens are elevated, so from a conditioning standpoint would #2's design better support the club's aims for firm and fast?
2. Would the ANGC powers that be narrow #2 via tree planting? Is there anything about #2's design that might lead them not to plant trees?  Or would they narrow at all? For example, would they bring in the wire grass on the right side of "their" 11th hole at #2 (instead of planting trees)? (For that matter, would they too have "rediscovered" wire grass in the first place?)
3. Regarding pressure from majors at least, doesn't #2 already play wider than other US Open venues? Would annual play change the apparent view of the USGA to play it wide? Or is the issue the USGA should let #2 play wider than they do?
4. Is the issue at ANGC the rough? I would have thought with tree encroachment the rough becomes a necessary "brake" on moderately-wayward balls.

Cheers
Mark

Phil,

I would guess ANGC would narrow #2 via rough and waste bunkers spiked with wire grass.

But would they? One thing #2 has is length. At the start of our little comparison clock, #2 stood at some 6,950 yards! For comparison, I don't think today's blue tees measure that length; if they do, they're not much longer than that, although the tournament course is longer.

And there is talk (firm plans?) to extend several of #2's holes yet again; there's still room out there.  The one I recall would involve moving 3 tee to the same side of the road as 2 green.  But this may support the view of #2: should it receive credit for design "elasticity?"

Mark

I've played #2 more than 100 times over the last 15 yers and it has changed substantially for the two U.S. Opens. 15 yeaers ago the back tees were roughly 7,000 yards and played to a par of 72. Now it plays to 7,300 yards and a par 70. The current blue tees, which used to be the back tees, are now 6,600 yards. So the course for mere mortals has been shortened by 300 to 400 yards. The new Open tees have really changed the character of the course. This meant that 8 and 16, which are now par 4s for the open, played as breather holes as they were reachable par 5s. #9 has been lengthed considerably. I believe the back tees used to max out at around 160. Now it goes back to 190. No. 17 has been treated similarly. For me that's 3 clubs difference but the pros are probably hitting the same clubs. A new tee has indeed been added at the third hole left of the 2nd green. There was also talk of pushing the 12th tee back onto the 18th tee of course 4 for the Open in 2005 but they didn't do it. Wouldn't be surprised to see that happen for the next open. They are also talking about moving he 13th tee back 30 yards or so so that it is almost behind the 12th green. They are also talking about moving the 7th behind the road next to the 6th green and changing the angle some so players can't hit driver over the corner anymore. It seems odd to me that they are considering making all of the short holes longer when this year's U.S. Open showed that sub 400 yard holes can be quite difficult for the pros. The rough is much longer for the U.S. Open than it is for regular play. Last week the regular rough was virtually the same height as the first cut. Since the first U.S Open the fairways have been permanently narrowed. The fairways are 20 yards narrower on every hole than they were before the first U.S. Open. This takes some of the fairway (now rough) bunkers out of play since the ball can run into them through all the rough. The one thing that hasn't been changed for the Open as fas as I can tell are te green complexes.

I want to contribute to this thread, but with all the counter factuals the top of my head keeps blowing off. I tried wearing a tight hat, but it hasn't helped.  

It is an interesting way of thinking about things, however. Counter factuals are actually a good way to parse causation issues. So I'll sit here in the stands and let you guys carry on.

Bob

It seems to me that Augusta has changed more because the very nature of the course has changed more. Augusta 20 years ago was wall to wall fairway (was it that way 70 years ago?). Trees have been added to narrow the course, which is totally against the philosophy that Mac and Jones designed the course with. Additional length isn't as big a deal to me as the issues I just mentioned because players are hitting it a whole heck of a lot farther. While the fairways at #2 have been narrowed, the playing corridors I don't think have been changed at all.

I think the management figures that the person coming for their one time trip to Pinehurst wants to play the course as they saw it on TV. But, for me, who plans on playing the course for the next 30 years or so I would rather play it with the width so more angles and more variety will be involved.

The top dressing routine is a myth.

How come the other four courses built in the era of #2 don't have the raised platforms of # 2? How come the greens at #2 are so vastly different than they were in the early and mis 1990's?

Because the course was chosen to become a US Open venue and the USGA and Rees Jones magnified the slopes, madr them sterner and created a far more difficult putting venue than the greens of # 2 prior to 1996. I am not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, it made the course more exacting and much more challenging. They also intoduced a number of chipping areas and other closely mown areas that were not only not there during the life of Ross but were not there in 1990.

The USGA and various "Open Doctor" Architects have a history of making changes at Ross venues (i.e. Oakland Hills, Inverness, Oak Hill). The amazing factor to me is that the courses at Oakland Hills and Pinehurst #2 remain in their original routing. They have been lengthened, rebunkered, had modifications to the greens, etc. but are still Ross in nature.

If Ross had lived would he have made similar changes? Who knows. Inverness and Oak Hill have new holes. Bethpage Black looks nothing like it did 30 years ago. Willie Park, Jr. would probably not recognize Olympia Fields. Baltusrop is hardly what one would call a true Tillinghast product.

The greatest of the greats like Shinnecock, #2, Merion and a couple others have managed to escape redesign because of their spectacular origins.

 

Wayne:

The Pinehurst greens are the same size and shape as they were in 1936. The contours have been accentuated but not by top dressing. It has been done intentionally. Remember these greens were rebuilt twice in the 90' and before that in the late 80's.

They are essentially Ross's greens, only on moderate steroids. They actually work rather well. The accentuation reduces the usable (pinnable) portions of the greens by about 75%. If the green is 8,000 square feet, the player has about 2,000 square feet as a target.

I would have to agree. The Shinnecock greens seem to me to be no more than slightly accentuated. Crystal Downs has a set of McKenzie greens that are relatively unscaythed over the years. The greens at Oakmont never needed accentuation. Merions greens appear to be pretty much the same as they were in the early 90's and do not seem to need any further toughening.

Oakmont is another course that has the same basic routing(less the turnpike) as it did at the beginning.

Wayne,

Your post spurred me to check Richard Mandell's book for info.

According to him as well as pictures in the book, elevated greens with big internal contours were part of Ross's design in 1936, and as Michael Fay notes, much of the work on the course in the past 10 years has been focused on returning the course to its original design.

There have been roughly seven major "change projects" to #2 since 1936.  A number of these involved changes to the greens.  Interestingly, where one project may have changed an aspect of Ross's design, another project subsequently came along to undo the changes!

This is an interesting contrast to ANGC: whereas ANGC has changed their home course to play less like the original design, #2 has been changed to play more like its original design. I just find that so interesting! Is this difference down to stewardship, the relative merits of the original designs, what?!

Several examples appear in Mandell's book. In 1973 Diamondhead changed the greens from Bermuda to Penncross bent, requiring heavy watering, and therefore softening, so that the design could not play firm and fast as intended.  Also, Diamondhead installed conventional Bermuda rough.  The purpose was to keep balls out of the pines.

But Diamondhead saw the error of its ways (partially) and in 1974 commissioned Peter Tufts to develop a master plan for restoration.  This plan was never completely done, however, and according to Mandell it turned into a misguided Fazio "renovation."

Still, by the end of the 1970s, Diamondhead re-surfaced its greens with Bermuda K-28 to restore some semblance of original playing characteristics. Up to this date, subsurface soils had been unchanged.

The restoration efforts really took off when Club Corp bought the resort.  In 1987, the greens were rebuilt (to USGA specs) and resodded. An attempt was made to use computer digital mapping to retain Ross's exact specs. But these greens already had been changed three times, plus there was the effect of topdressing.

No attempt was made to raise or lower the greens in this rebuild.

The work was not done particularly well, and the resodding (to bentgrass again) did not take.

Then came the 1990s and two significant changes to the course.  First, in 1995 every tree on the course was evaluated to determine how it affected the health of the greens and "strategic merit" of holes. As a result of this effort, trees were removed in order to widen playing corridors and create openness (infinity views) behind greens. (Both changes brought the course back towards Ross's design.)

And then in 1996 came another greens rebuild.  Ross never drew a construction plan for #2, but the team found maps from 1962 and used those to return perimeters and restore sizes of every green.  All existing contours were computer mapped and the greens rebuilt within two-hundredths of a foot.

Although the greens were (again) rebuilt to USGA specs, the argument was that it would enable better drainage and summertime green speeds akin to what Ross could achieve with his grasses in wintertime. And of course those maps didn't say anything about contour. Certainly there have been effects of top dressing over the years, but the point is, if ownership would have had original contour maps, it seems to me they would have tried to restore the greens.

Also, looking at vintage pictures of the greens in Mandell's book, I am struck by how easy it is to recognize them.  (I find this much harder to do when I look at old ANGC pics!)

Another significant restoration at this time was the bunkers.  The team found two to three feet of sand from previous years, so they just dug this out, restoring the depths to "pretty much where Donald Ross had them," according to Rees Jones, who handled the work.  But they failed to restore the flashing Ross originally built, and so the bunkers remain different from Ross's time.

So the course is not without change.  But as Michael Fay notes, the greens are much closer to original design today than they have been in some 40 years.

And the contrast of the work done on the course to that done on ANGC is interesting: #2's corridors (as defined by trees: there's still Steve's observation of rough that niggles) have been widened, the bunkers brought closer to the original, and the greens returned to original sizes and contours to the greatest extent possible.

If ANGC did similar, would the challenge of the course be reduced, and if so what does that say about the relative merits of the original designs?

Mark

PS Mandell's book has a routing map from 1936. I'm going to compare those holes to a yardage book when I get a chance.

Let's get at this lengthening business of the two courses, shall we? How much has each been lengthened, and does this say anything about the relative merits of design? In other words, if one course's length remains relatively close to its original length, does that indicate a superior design? (Or just that you can't judge a course by how "little" the modern game has ravaged it?)

First, let's compare the hole yardages of #2's "Long" scorecard from the 1936 PGA Championship vs. the "US Open" tees on the current card:

Hole     1936 "Long"     US Open (Current)        Percentage Change  Comments
  1             419                     405                                 -3%
  2             434                     472                                  9%            
  3             334                     384                                15%
  4             476                     568                                19%
  5             467                     476                                  2%             Played as par 5 in 1936
  6             209                     224                                  7%
  7             386                     407                                  5%
  8             466                     467                                  0%             2007 Blue tees are 487 (par 5); note to Steve K: listed as par 4 in '36!
  9             143                     190                                33%

Out         3,334 (Par 36)       3,593 (Par 35)                    8%

 10            598                     611                                  2%
 11            433                     478                                10%
 12            409                     451                                10%
 13            377                     380                                  1%
 14            442                     471                                  7%
 15            204                     206                                  1%
 16            473                     510                                  8%            Played as par 5 in 1936
 17            186                     190                                  2%
 18            423                     445                                  5%

In           3,545                  3,742                                  6%

Total       6,879                  7,335                                  7%      2007 rating and slope are the stuff of the mythical "ideal" course: 76.0 & 137. Either that, or they're an
                                                                                             indication of the limitations of the slope formula!

So: five holes have been lengthened by 10 percent or more; the remaining 13 holes have been lengthened by less than 10 percent. I picked 10 percent as an arbitrary figure; a better figure would correspond to changes in distance golfers hit the ball over the time period.  And that the course plays "only" 7 percent longer today does not address the likely reality that the course plays significantly shorter today, for surely that 6,879 yardage was daunting in its time, yes?

Now to ANGC.  I don't have 1936 figures; rather I will go by the 1934 figures (insert "drunk looking for keys under lamppost" joke here) from Stan Byrdy's book versus the figures for the 2007 Masters as listed on www.masters.org

Hole     1936 "Long"     US Open (Current)        Percentage Change  Comments
  1             400                     455                                 14%
  2             525                     575                                 10%            
  3             350                     350                                  0%
  4             190                     240                                26%
  5             440                     455                                  3%            
  6             185                     180                                 -3%
  7             340                     450                                 32%
  8             500                     570                                 14%            
  9             420                     460                                10%

Out         3,350 (Par 36)       3,735 (Par 36)                   11%

 10            430                     495                                 15%
 11            415                     505                                22%
 12            150                     155                                  3%
 13            480                     510                                  6%
 14            425                     440                                  4%
 15            485                     530                                  9%
 16            145                     170                                 17%          
 17            400                     440                                 10%
 18            420                     465                                 11%

In           3,350 (Par 36)       3,710 (Par 36)                   11%            Note identical inward and outward 1934 yardages!

Total       6,700 (Par 72)       7,445 (Par 72)                   11%

To be honest, I can't say I find the differences in overall length of each course overly dramatic, all things considering.  Do you?  If so, that likely speaks to the strengths of each design: they were designed for tournament play, after all, by two brilliant designers.

The differences though start to look more significant when you look at the individual holes to see where that extra yardage has been added.  #2's stewards chose more or less to add the length proportionally to each hole, whereas ANGC piled it into a few holes.  ANGC lengthened seven holes by 50 yards or more; #2 just two.

I find it most interesting that, as a collection, the holes lengthened by less than 10 percent would get many votes as the strongest collection of holes on the course.  (Say, versus a random selection of holes) For example, Mac considered the 3rd "nearly perfect in design" (text of Byrdy's book) and has been changed the least of any hole on the course, and not simply in regard to a change in length of zero.

Does the need to lengthen a hole indicate a relative weakness? If so, the count at ANGC is 11 holes lengthened by 10 percent or greater.

Or does lengthening indicate some unappreciated failure of stewardship?  I suppose we should consider that for some of these holes, lengthening is not possible.  And if ANGC's home course was #2, would #2 be 11 percent longer today, for a total yardage of (gasp) 7,644?

Mark