No. 2's Greens Not as Ross Intended?

[TEPaul]

"but I do know Hurdzan is a disciple of FE Taylor (I think those are his initials) and he believes his death set the field of golf course agronomy back decades, largely because Piper and Oakley did not grasp or embrace his ideas.

Tom MacW:

That's interesting. I'd like to know why Michael Hurzdan thinks Taylor's death set golf course agronomy back decades and also why he thinks Piper and Oakley didn't grasp or embrace Taylor's ideas.

Frankly, it was Taylor's (a Philadelphian) death that basically set Piper and Oakley and Hugh Wilson in motion to produce a book on golf agronomy "Turf for Golf Courses". The reason his death set them in motion to publish this book is Taylor's sudden death in 1915 left all Taylor's collected research on both grasses (for golf) and his novel invention of a putting green construction method (some say the precusor to the USGA spec putting green construction method) unsecured. Wilson immediately contacted Taylor's brother in law (an executor) to secure Taylor's research and publish it in the book or elsewhere. A good amount of Taylor's research is published in that book.

Probably half, or more, of the greens of Pine Valley were converted by Crump to the Taylor green construction method before Crump died in 1918. Crump had planned to convert all his greens to Taylor greens! Fredrick Winslow Taylor, by the way, was one of the original subscribing members of PVGC and was primarily from the Philadelphia Cricket Club.

Taylor was a most unusual man, to say the least. Putting green construction and golf agronomy was definitely nothing more than a side-line to him. He was the product of a very wealthy, extremely intelligent, aristocratic free-thinking Quaker family.

Taylor was world reknowned (and extremely controversial) for creating what became known as the "Scientific Management Method" which is basically the modern day employer/employee blueprint on which most all America labor management is now based on! Taylor was an efficiency expert par excellence. He was also an inventor, and made millions on various business and labor machine inventions.

Taylor had a personal gardener by the name of Robert Bender who apparently became the primary constructor of his putting green construction method and perhaps his primary researcher in golf agronomy and golf grasses.

So I'm not exactly sure why Mike Hurzdan believes Piper and Oakley were at odds with Fredrick Winslow Taylor or his ideas. We do have Michael's # and will certainly call him for more on that.

Perhaps the thing Michael Hurzdan is talking about, though, is the philosophy that appeared prevalent at that early stage of golf agronomy of liming (sweetenting) acidic soil. The obvious reason to lime or "sweeten" acidic soil was to allow things to grow more easily or more rapidly. Unfortunately, and in retrospect, that philosophy may have allowed too much to grow including endless weeds or whatever that competed with an acceptable golf grass and created problems that needed to be remediated.

Perhaps, that's what Hurzdan thinks set back golf agronomy by decades but at that early time those men were the last word in the world on golf agronomy. I don't think Taylor had come up with anything on golf agronomy they did not know or were in disagreement with.

Did Taylor (or Bender) completely disagree with "sweetening" acidic soil for golf agronomy? That's probaby the most logical question. If they did, then only that, as far as I can see, would've been what Piper and Oakley and the direction of golf agronomy did not heed!

[TEPaul]

There seems to be a sort of historic irony here regarding F.W. Taylor and Michael Hurzdan and what Hurzdan might think of Taylor, Taylor's advancement in early golf agronomy, how not heeding something to do with Taylor's ideas by Piper and Oakley may have set back golf agronomy by decades, as well as a particular golf club in Philadelphia.

Taylor's reputation in putting green construction and putting surface quality was basically made by the Taylor greens at Sunnybrook G.C (Ross 1914). The excellence of those Sunnybrook putting greens definitely did not escape the notice of Hugh Wilson who was struggling with the putting surfaces of Merion East at the time.

Sunnybrook G.C has since moved to a new site and in the last few years the club has had a number of holes and a few of their putting greens rebuilt and remodeled by Hurzdan and Fry.

I know that course really well and was over there not long ago playing with the new green chairman. Hurzdan and Fry's rebuilt greens they say are a bit difficult to manage (or let's say very different to manage) compared to the old greens (push-ups?) because they're primarily sand based and probably drain so well (too well?) that they're in constant need of syringing (and cooling) compared to the rest of the older original greens!!

It'd be interesting to know if Michael Hurzdan thinks so much of Fredrick Taylor and his green construction and agronomic methods that he actually copied what Taylor had done with the greens of the original Sunnybrook G.C in 1914!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You should also know that alkaline based soils often are irrigated with diluted sulfuric acid to bring the PH factor closer to neutral which I believe is 7.

[A_Clay_Man]

TP- Is that basically an example of Hydrophobicity? (sp?) Sand molecules repelling water and draining too well. (p,s. Sorry for the big words this early.)

Or is that just an excuse for the inherent problems usga spec greens, appear to have?

The three bears come to mind.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
You should also know that alkaline based soils often are irrigated with diluted sulfuric acid to bring the PH factor closer to neutral which I believe is 7."

Patrick Mucci:

Don't you dare go throwing around big scientfic words and scientific ideas like that at me at 7:30 in the morning! Stuff like that gives me a headache and makes me want to take a nap!

The only question here, and the only one you should be concerning yourself with and discussing is did big scientific words and scientific ideas like that give Piper, Oakley and Fredrick Winslow Taylor a headache at 7:30 in the morning in 1915, or did they not?

[TEPaul]

Adam Clayman:

Hydrophobia is perhaps a complex problem to good agronomic conditions for good golf playbability. I originally thought it was a soil condition that was so compacted that water (and roots) could basically not penetrate and would tend to run off. Apparently, it's a two edged sword whereby water may also simply run right through the growing medium (sand?) whereby the medium fails to retain the necessary moisture to sustain the plant!

Trying to maintain good healthy grass on compacted soil that does not perk well is a problem because most of the time you have to absolutely soak it but so is a medium that drains so well moisture cannot be retained properly to sustain the plant.

The latter problem (not sufficient moisture retention) is the one that plagued the intial agronomic efforts of both PVGC and NGLA--two courses built on extemely sand-based property. On the other hand, the opposite problem of super compacted soil that needs to be absolutely soaked since the majority of the irrigation application runs off is the type that stays too wet too long and produces generally too wet and too soft conditions is inherent on golf courses that were generally built on old farmland and heavily clay-based soils!

Apparently both extremes and both problems can generally be categorized as hydrophobia.

[A_Clay_Man]

Then the question is: Is there a perfect mix? Ergo, the 3 bears.

I remember back a few years ago, the first green at Old Del Monte, had it's sand changed to a more rounded particle. Sorry I can't report on it's progress.  Would it then be idiotic to speculate, that on clay based terrain, this rounded, more fluid particle maybe preferrable? While on sandy well draining soil, the rectangular, or squared edged particle, would assist in retention?

[TEPaul]

Adam:

I've absolutely no idea what you mean by the "three bears". Would you mind refraining from speaking in nursery rhymes at this hour of the morining?! At least save the nursey rhyme analogies for some hour when I want to go "beddy-by".

[A_Clay_Man]

Just in-case your not kidding:

One drains too well. One drains, not.

Is there one (or a combimation of variables regional and soil composition specific) that's juuusstt right?

[T_MacWood]

You boys sure know a lot more about green mechanics than I do, I would suggest you get Hurdzan's new book. I've read excerpts from it, and from someone who's more interested history of design and not so much golf green construction methods, I'd have to say this book is very interesting. Frederick Taylor in particular is a fascinating cat.

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471459453.html

TE
I don't know why Sunnybrooks greens turned out poorly, I'll ask Dr.Hurdzan the next time I see him.

My impression (I could be wrong, thats why I'd recomend the book) is that Taylor had an advantage over Piper & Oakley, in that he wasn't trained or educated in agricualtural science. He approached the subject of building greens with clean slate, and came to his conclusions based upon trial and error, and a huge amount of experimentation.

Taylor (from what I gather) was a proponent of adjustment based upon the site (beit the nature of the soil, the weather, water, etc). I believe Piper & Oakley were more into fairly stringent principals for all (not unlike the USGA green, which I get the impression Hurdzan is not a huge fan of) and did not have the practical expertise Taylor acquired...I'll stop here because I'm afraid I really don't know what I'm talking about.

[TEPaul]

"TE
I don't know why Sunnybrooks greens turned out poorly, I'll ask Dr.Hurdzan the next time I see him."

Tom, now don't just go off pruveying misinformation again. I absolutely never said Sunnybrook's new greens by Hurzdan and Fry turned out poorly! All I said was they apparently require quite different management and maintenance practices than the rest of Sunnybrook's greens because they're built quite different than the rest (the new ones are apparently very sand-based). Perhaps that just took the maintenance crew a bit more OJT to get used to than they expected! #13 didn't turn out well at all but it could've been as much a shade problem as anything else! It's got a lot of light now and seems fine.

[TEPaul]

What's the name of Hurzdan's new book? I have his "Golf Course Architecture". Is the one you mentioned a new one?

[Tim Liddy]

TEPaul

When you talk to Pete Dye you might ask him about “Amos Jones greens”.

I have heard Pete refer to the Pinehurst greens, in the usual unique Pete Dye way, as “Amos Jones Greens” (not Donald Ross greens), Amos being an euphemism for the guy that drove the top dressing tractor over many years. He also says the same thing about the greens at Seminole.

[TEPaul]

Tom:

Piper and Oakley didn't have any practical experience at all in golf course construction methods--certainly not in the beginning when they were first contacted by Macdonald and then the Wilsons of Merion about what to grow on their golf courses and how.

What they knew how to do is grow things--to analyze the effects of disease and other problems on things that grew. One was primarily a botanist and the other and agronomist, at first solely in agricultural crops and grasses and such for the United States Dept of Agriculture!

They were clearly the logical people to go to in the beginning in America where there virtually was no golf agronomic knowledge in that early era!

The only people golf constructors could depend on in that early time for golf agronomics were the seed merchants and basically they packaged everything they could think of into the same mix for the simple reason that something was bound to grow. That created a golf agronomic situation of hit and miss, remediation, individual OJT and experimentation that was so rudimentary to what we think of today as acceptable as to be almost beyond belief.

Piper and Oakley had the facility to experiment with individual grasses that were offered them and they might recommend and all the problems related to them in their experimental farm near D.C that was far more advanced and effective than anyone else involved in golf had (Macdonald later developed his own small experimentation plots at his large estate next to NGLA).

So for Hurzdan to say Piper and Oakley set back golf agronomy decades in that early era really doesnt make a lot of sense to me.

What they basically told Macdonald at NGLA early on and later PVGC was that no one could grow grass for acceptable golf in straight sand--that you needed a mixture of clay to bind together a growing medium of various top-soils for grass sustenance as well as to retain the proper amount of moisture within the draining medium of sand to sustain the life of the grass plant.

There was nothing at all wrong with that. The liming philosophy was apparently another matter that simply encouraged things to grow--even things that weren't wanted like weeds and other vegetation not good for golf and its agronomy and playablity.

This is certainly in counterpoint to the amazing initial grasses of the original linksland (agrostis and festuca) that were an excellent natural playing surface for golf and just happened to be the only two grasses that were able to survive in the super acidic linksland soil so that nothing else competed with them!

None of those early course in America had the same kind of super acidic soils that the linksland (and ironicially the early Heathland courses) had, so that wasn't applicable in America!

The reason the early linksland and ironically the early heathlands had such acidic soil didn't exactly have anything that was known or understood at that time to due with golf agronomy.

The ONLY reason early linksland and ironically early heathland sites were used for golf is because it COULDN'T BE USED for farming and agriculture---it was way to acidic for anything to grow in it except agrostis and festuca and other super hardy plants such as gorse and such!

It's all pretty ironic really and understanding the evolution and progression of it all shows that very clearly.

Piper and Oakley around 1915 became very interested in golf course construction methods, particularly putting greens. They had real respect for Taylor's methods of putting green construction. Wilson was aware of it and consequently so were Piper and Oakley and they put it in the book they produced in 1915-16 "Turf for Golf Courses".

[T_MacWood]

TE
Like I said, I can't pretend to be an expert on the subject (I know next to nothing). Have you read Taylor's massive paper on green construction in American Golfer?

From what I gather Taylor was way ahead of his time, his ideas on green constrcution are nearly identical to the evolved modern theory (evidently in contrast to P & O). My understanding (which is admittedly very limited) is that Piper and Oakley in someways took a detour that got us off course a bit.

But then again you are way ahead of me on the subject (therfore I can't disagree with anything you are writing), you seem to be strongly entrenched in the P & O camp and you obviously have good reasons to do so.

[TEPaul]

Tom:

No, I've not read Taylor's massive paper on green construction but I have to do so. My understanding is his layered green construction method was basically a sort of percusor of the later USGA spec green. His method involved layering in at a 45 degree angle. Again, as far as I know Piper and Oakley were not into golf course construction or green construction, they were into how best to grow grass for golf on the most effectively constructed greens and fairways for growing grass.

But I'd love to know what Michael Hurzdan thinks Piper and Oakley did wrong to set back Taylor's advances by decades, that's for sure. I suspect it's probably got something to do with their soil sweeting advocacy through liming!

[Brian Phillips]

Tom Macwood,

Thank you for the link to the new book.  It looks like a fantastic reference book and for the price it is very well worth it.

Brian

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

Thank you too from me for the link to Hurzdan's new book. That's pretty expensive for an esoteric book but for the likes of us it looks like a must!

[Patrick_Mucci]

As Jim Lipe mentions, Ed Connor rebuilt the greens at No. 2 twice, once in the early 1980's.  The first time, the greens were not rebuilt precisely ... Ed showed me a dip on the right side of the 18th green which he filled in 3-4 inches to make it less severe, at the urging of the Pinehurst staff.  He said there were a handful of other modifications, but he didn't say anything about an overall change.  There is no way the greens got built up 18 inches too high at that time; the mistake would be way too obvious, and Ed Connor wouldn't have stood for it.  [Actually, he would have been too busy falling off his tractor!]

Pete Dye's story is that the greens were topdressed up to roughly their present shape by 1946 or 1947, when he chatted with Donald Ross.  It is entirely possible this was the case.  Common bermuda greens were heavily topdressed in those days ... when we rebuilt the greens at Yeamans Hall we had to remove about a foot of topdressing sand from the middle of the greens, which had shrunk to half their size before the addition of topdressing.

The deeper meaning of Pete's story is that he seems to be saying that all this careful preservation and restoration of Ross's work is misguided ... that if Ross were alive today he would be lengthening his holes and changing greens which have evolved over time.  That may [or may not] be true at Pinehurst No. 2, but it's dangerous to expand the argument to other golf courses, because Mr. Ross didn't say anything about them.

The funny thing is, Pete Dye has always been one of the biggest fans of Pinehurst No. 2 ... so it's odd for him to be saying the greens are not what they're meant to be.  Without its greens, No. 2 wouldn't be very highly regarded, would it?

Tom Doak,

In his book, written in 1995, Pete Dye praises Pinehurst # 2 to the nth degree.  He offers NO negative criticism of the greens and/or surrounds, ONLY heaping praise on both

[Matthew Mollica]

I'm glad you dug this thread up Pat, as it ties in with what I was posting in your thread on Seminole's greens.

I had wondered if Dye's take on Pinehurst #2's greens was true, and if so, if they had happened at Seminole, resulting in greens boasting similarly domed / convex shapes.

It would be neat to ask Dye about the Pinehurst greens again.

While I'm at it - a question for Tom -

You said that Ed Connor rebuilt the greens, and that you had also rebuilt greens (at other courses in years gone by).

When examining the profile of soil as it is being removed, how easy is it to tell what was top dressing, and what was original construction profile?

Matthew