Golf Digest article on Ross Pinehurst #2 Greens

[Brad Klein]

Kudos to Whitten for detailing the case about those incredibly rising greens. I raised the issue on my Ross book and included pictorial evidence of the 4th green from 1935. Pete Dye's testimony was crucial, and I think it's great Whitten has now detailed it, esp. the part about the greens having been chopped off at the end to create the birthday case effect. The photo evidence is uncontestable. I've has detailed talks with Pinehurst greenkeeping staff on this, and while they disagree on the cause they know there's been a change.

[Mike_Cirba]

Brad,

Unfortunately, I let my subscription to GD elapse.  

However, I'm not understanding the mechanics involved in what you describe as "Chopping off" the greens at the end.  The only way I can envision what you're describing is for someone to almost go to the edges of each green and dig a trench down to a lower level.  

Is this what is being contended?

Thanks for any info.

[Pete Lavallee]

Brad,

Could you speculate as to why this "crowning effect" only seems to have occured on the #2 course? Where the same top dressing practices carried out on the other course there? I can see how the sand would accumulate without the presence of aeration holes, others appear to need more proof.

[Mike_Cirba]

Well, yes, Pete...not to be a doubting Thomas but I can't understand why this did not happen at almost every other course of that era?

If Aerification only began as a practice during the 50s, heavy topdressing must have been a common practice before then at many courses.  

We should have a world full of Pineapple upside down cakes for greens, right?

[Pete Lavallee]

Mike, I would be interested to know what type of green's maintenance practices were in place in the 30's and 40's. Was top dressing with sand a common practice in the northeast as well? Without aerefication it would seem to be done only to smooth out the putting surfaces; weren't conditions much more spartan in those days? Many of the links courses of the British Isles still do not top dress to this day; leading I might add, to a tremendous local knowledge edge for the home squad.

[George_Williams]

Mike C.-
I think the reason this is not the same as any other 50 yr old Ross greens is that you are mainly thinking of bentgrass greens in the East and Northeast that would  not require or use these massive amounts of topdressing, so you wouldn't notice such changes.  Note these were Common Bermudagrass!  If you have ever seen a Common green you will know why they practiced these techniques.

[Mark Brown]

Dye was the in the service and was the super of the Fort Bragg course near Pinehurst and his observations were over a fair amount of time. Ross' was spending a lot of time at Pinehurst at that time.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike Cirba,
Buy the magazine and you'll educate yourself about the greens  
Mark

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark/George/Pete/Brad;

Thanks for providing additional, educational information.  

Perhaps if someone could pinpoint when the edges of the greens were "shaved" it might be clearer.  I can't help but think, though, that people like Sam Snead who played there for generations might have pointed out that the course was evolving into something that perhaps Donald wouldn't have fathomed?

Perhaps Mark is correct and I should read the article.  

[George Pazin]

bumping for Dan - I think there's more, but I haven't found it yet.

[Mike_Young]

As most know i am intrigued by the myth of Ross and all of the details he is credited with which IMHO he developed in Macro not micro.....
But I can say that most courses i have seen with domed greens were on land where the green complex was "brought in" or "piled" before being developed or shaped.  I think most of #2 is this method.  If you view old courses where many of the complexes were "cut" or where the "pile" extended out beyond the green edges for a good distance...you do not see doming. 
Also, one shaper that was on the #2 job when JN was there mentioned that they worked off of the green details that Ed Conner had shot and and that is some cases the cavity depth was not acknowledged on site and the edges were tied back in accordingly...this would account for some....
Also if any have seen the new Pinehurst  ad..... it goes something like  "he built ----hundred courses he never saw...imagine  the one where he lived..."   that says alot.....
long live the myth....
Me....give me Pine Needles

[michael j fay]

I was a member of the Pinehurst CC from 1989 to 2007.

The greens at the #2 course were rebuilt three times during that period.

When I first palyed there the greens were moderately crowned, when they were rebuilt in 1996 they were more crowned and after the alterations in the early 2000's they became what they are today. It was intentional on the part of those altering the greens and has nothing to do with a build up of top-dressing.

There are 43 courses in the Pinehurst area and none of them became crowned to any degree close to this during that period. There are seven other courses at the Pinehurst Resort and none of them have experienced this phenomena.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Michael

I recall from Richard Mandell's book there were two rebuilds prior to your time there as a member, the second in 1987.

Those two rebuilds screwed up the greens and it was the 1996 effort that was the first step towards restoration. They were trying to undo the earlier screwups.

Also, the book contains pictures dating to the 1930s showing some very crowned greens. And Mandell himself says the top-dressing story is myth.

Again, all this is off a balky memory and I hope I haven't said more than Mandell wrote. Perhaps Richard M will see this and provide his perspective.

Mark

[John Moore II]

I said this in my post on the other thread, but the greens at #2 are very unique among Ross courses. You see the run off areas on many, but never to the severity of #2. Needles has the slopes, Mid Pines has them, Southern Pines has them in places. But not to the degree of #2. I think #2 was done that way to bring them to some false D. Ross standard and they succeeded. Ross did not build greens that crowned. And I like what Pete Dye said in another article about the Ross style. He said that were Ross designing courses today he felt that the greens would be nowhere near as crowned and the courses longer to deal with the style of play. The way they built courses 75-100 years ago could not work today because of the speed we run greens, its that simple. Those courses are not fair or playable for about 90% of the population, Pinehurst #2 included.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Kenneth

All that may be true but just because #2's greens are unique doesn't mean Ross didn't design them that way.

This was his home course and he never stopped working on it. He had plans for changes on the drawing board the day he died. So it got a lot of attention, producing a record renovators and restorers could refer to. I think the green rebuild of 1996 was based on 1960 documentary evidence from one of Ross's assistants.

Secondly, my understanding is Ross designed this course from the start to challenge the very best golfers. He meant it as a tournament course form the start, one possible explanation for how #2 greens could differ from others he designed, even those nearby. As a result, according to Mandell's book #1 was far more popular prior to WW2.

Lastly, there HAS been one major impact of maintenance since the course's opening: the slopes surrounding the greens originally were maintained, by intent, at rough length not fairway length.

According to the nephew of the founder Tufts, Ross intended to present a test of chipping. Balls were supposed to get hung up at odd angles and lies.

IMHO this sounds like a plausible explanation for Ross indeed choosing to build raised greens. Photos in Mandell's book show not only raised greens but several greens with wild contours - an aspect of Ross's design that does appear muted today.

Mark

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

I understand that at Sara Bay Country Club, Sarasota, Fla. are the only set of Ross greens that mimic the style of Pinehurst No. 2.


Anthony

[John Moore II]

Mark--My point was that I do not think that Ross intended for fairly struck shots into the greens to run 30 yards off the side into a tight lie. His purpose was to provide a challenge to the best golfers, but to hit a shot almost perfect and have it go far off the green I can't see as being the intent of any designer.

[Sean_A]

Mark--My point was that I do not think that Ross intended for fairly struck shots into the greens to run 30 yards off the side into a tight lie. His purpose was to provide a challenge to the best golfers, but to hit a shot almost perfect and have it go far off the green I can't see as being the intent of any designer.

I would say you haven't hit a perfect shot if the ball rolls away 30 yards.  The problem with #2's greens is that the landing areas are so very small and often times not really apparent from the fairway.  This is a great concept for a few holes, but not nearly to the limit which #2 goes. 

I never believed that #2's greens were some kind of fluke.  There are plenty of photos about which clearly show crowned green sections back in the day.  The one thing which has most certainly changed is green speeds.  Trying to recover on greens designed like #2's stimping even at 10 is a nightmare and consistently so. 

Ciao

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

I have no idea how to download .tiff files here but if you go to this 1926 advertisement in Golf Illustrated there is a very cool photo of a flat sand 18th green on No. 2.

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1926/gi251b.pdf


Anthony

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

[John Moore II]

Indeed, when the greens were sand only, they were very flat, because they were very fast, even by todays standards I would say. However when converted to grass, from what I understand, they were made with more contours, however, based on current speeds as opposed to the speeds of 75 years ago, the greens become foolish to a certain degree.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I concur with Mike. I just don't understand what was done to the greens to create the domed features. To his question, "Why didn't this happen to other courses?"

[Charlie Goerges]

"Why didn't this happen to other courses?"

On one of the other Pinehurst threads, Tom Doak said it has happened to other courses, a lot more than most of us probably realize. He gave some reasons for it being worse at Pinehurst, but it seems to be a more common occurrence than I thought.

[Mike Worth]

I concur with Mike. I just don't understand what was done to the greens to create the domed features. To his question, "Why didn't this happen to other courses?"

I played several of the Pinehurst courses in mid May (1, 3, 4, 10). I did not play 2 this time as I had played it a few years ago


Anyway, #3’s greens have the same turtleback feature - in fact, many of the staff will tell you that 3’s greens are similar to 2’s.


So is this a specific aspect of some greens at Pinehurst?