[BCrosby]

The two best greens at ANGC - 5 and 14 - are largely untouched.

Bob

[Adam Clayman]

Tom Doak,
 How much can top dressing alter a green? And, if it's that significant, why is it so significant?

Most of the top dressing practices I've seen appear to be rather equal throughout the green. The dragging in always seems to spread around a bit.

Now, I have noticed in the winter time, Corey puts a heavy dose of sand and mil-organite down. After some moisture, and wind, some of the lower areas fill up with a bit of excess sand and the mil-organite.

Is it that subtle nature of the filling of the subtle valleys, the changes you refer?

[Tyler Kearns]

Tom Doak,
 How much can top dressing alter a green? And, if it's that significant, why is it so significant?

Most of the top dressing practices I've seen appear to be rather equal throughout the green. The dragging in always seems to spread around a bit.

Now, I have noticed in the winter time, Corey puts a heavy dose of sand and mil-organite down. After some moisture, and wind, some of the lower areas fill up with a bit of excess sand and the mil-organite.

Is it that subtle nature of the filling of the subtle valleys, the changes you refer?

Adam,

I think you've answered your own question. While topdressing sand is spread as evenly as possible throughout the green, the action of brushing the sand into the aeration holes and the effects of wind and rain/irrigation will tend to push topdressing sand off the high point and into the low points, flattening the contours. Over time, this will create some noticeable changes.

TK

[Carl Rogers]

The two best greens at ANGC - 5 and 14 - are largely untouched.

Bob

Has the 3rd green at ANGC been altered?  (I always, perhaps erroneously, thought that the entire 3rd hole was the last "orginal" at ANGC).

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Doak,
 How much can top dressing alter a green? And, if it's that significant, why is it so significant?

Most of the top dressing practices I've seen appear to be rather equal throughout the green. The dragging in always seems to spread around a bit.

Now, I have noticed in the winter time, Corey puts a heavy dose of sand and mil-organite down. After some moisture, and wind, some of the lower areas fill up with a bit of excess sand and the mil-organite.

Is it that subtle nature of the filling of the subtle valleys, the changes you refer?

Adam:

There's another thread started on this, where I gave a more complete answer, probably on page 2 now.

The changes within the green, relative to the other contours in the green, are not so dramatic.  What changes is the relationship of the green to the surrounds.  For example, at Cypress Point, it was obvious that a lot of the greens were originally "dished" into the landscape ... they rose up sharply at the back edge and softly at the greenside bunkers, so that shots were kind of held in, and you could manage putting down the steep slopes by using the side-slopes.  But, after a foot or two of topdressing material, it's all different.  The approaches in front are much steeper, and the greens don't dish in from the sides as much as they used to, because the center of the green has filled up more than the edges.

It's a lot easier to look at in 3-D than it is to explain it on paper, but it's more significant than I had previously thought.  If Cypress just maps the greens the way they are and rebuilds them, they won't really be rebuilding MacKenzie's greens at all.

[BCrosby]

The two best greens at ANGC - 5 and 14 - are largely untouched.

Bob

Has the 3rd green at ANGC been altered?  (I always, perhaps erroneously, thought that the entire 3rd hole was the last "orginal" at ANGC).

Yes, I might have included the 3rd green. I didn't only because it's not as interesting as the 5th and 14th greens. The 8th is also a wonderful green, very close to the Mack original, but it is a circa 1976 restoration. The 15th and 17th are also pretty close to MacK's originals. The 12th has been rebuilt many times, mostly because of flooding. My guess is that the current green, though now perched up higher than the original (think water table) probably plays much the same as in 1933/34.

Bob

[Mike_Clayton]

Chip,

Over the years some Kingston Heath's greens have been altered quite a bit.
Graeme Grant changed the 6th,13th and 18th greens significantly. I think he also changed the back of the 10th green - it is narrower than it was in 1980 and, from memory, it falls off more than it used to.

There is an old photo of the 15th hole from the tee with a player standing in the back left quarter of the green - over the bunker - and his shoes are visible. The lip of that bunker has come up a lot over the intervening 70 years.

[Tom_Doak]

The two best greens at ANGC - 5 and 14 - are largely untouched.

Bob

Has the 3rd green at ANGC been altered?  (I always, perhaps erroneously, thought that the entire 3rd hole was the last "orginal" at ANGC).

Yes, I might have included the 3rd green. I didn't only because it's not as interesting as the 5th and 14th greens. The 8th is also a wonderful green, very close to the Mack original, but it is a circa 1976 restoration. The 15th and 17th are also pretty close to MacK's originals. The 12th has been rebuilt many times, mostly because of flooding. My guess is that the current green, though now perched up higher than the original (think water table) probably plays much the same as in 1933/34.

Bob

I would swear that the first time I saw Augusta National, in the summer of 1981, they were rebuilding the third green to USGA specs.

I told my host at Augusta last week that the most amazing thing to me about the course was that from 1991-2000 the course had several USGA greens intermixed with several original greens built on the clay, and I never heard a player mention the difference between the two types.  But I believe every single green has now been changed to a USGA profile, even #14 (where they altered the back left quadrant) and #5 (which my caddie told me had been changed significantly).

[JR Potts]

I told my host at Augusta last week that the most amazing thing to me about the course was that from 1991-2000 the course had several USGA greens intermixed with several original greens built on the clay, and I never heard a player mention the difference between the two types.

Bragger!

[RSLivingston_III]

I am curious if Belvedere is all original. Some of the greens have such incredible contouring you have to wonder how they survived. I assume Mr. Doak would have some insights on that matter.

[BCrosby]

Tom -

I stand corrected. I did not know so many of the ANGC greens had been rebuilt to USGA specs.  

Bob

[Tom_Doak]

Bob:

I'm pretty sure they have rebuilt all 18 of them by now.  I just don't know when they completed the last of them.  They are pretty quiet about that sort of stuff.  They did make a change to the back right of #17 this past summer.


Ralph:

I'm not sure if any greens at Belvedere have been changed.  I would guess not.  Bruce Hepner would know better than me.

[Tom_Doak]

I told my host at Augusta last week that the most amazing thing to me about the course was that from 1991-2000 the course had several USGA greens intermixed with several original greens built on the clay, and I never heard a player mention the difference between the two types.

Bragger!

Hey, it was just a part of the conversation.    And yes, it was a fun day.

[Dunlop_White]

The changes within the green, relative to the other contours in the green, are not so dramatic.  What changes is the relationship of the green to the surrounds.  For example, at Cypress Point, it was obvious that a lot of the greens were originally "dished" into the landscape ... they rose up sharply at the back edge and softly at the greenside bunkers, so that shots were kind of held in, and you could manage putting down the steep slopes by using the side-slopes.  But, after a foot or two of topdressing material, it's all different.  The approaches in front are much steeper, and the greens don't dish in from the sides as much as they used to, because the center of the green has filled up more than the edges. It's a lot easier to look at in 3-D than it is to explain it on paper, but it's more significant than I had previously thought.  If Cypress just maps the greens the way they are and rebuilds them, they won't really be rebuilding MacKenzie's greens at all.

TD, this is one of the best descriptive illustrations I have read about the long term effects of top-dressing applications on green evolutions. What you describe at CP, in my opinion, has occurred at numerous other classic courses almost in identical fashion. I do not have the software or the know-hows to create a 3D representation of this, but if anyone has the time or the inclination, I believe it would be an eye-opener to all and a fantastic tool to demonstrate to memberships.

[Sean_A]

The changes within the green, relative to the other contours in the green, are not so dramatic.  What changes is the relationship of the green to the surrounds.  For example, at Cypress Point, it was obvious that a lot of the greens were originally "dished" into the landscape ... they rose up sharply at the back edge and softly at the greenside bunkers, so that shots were kind of held in, and you could manage putting down the steep slopes by using the side-slopes.  But, after a foot or two of topdressing material, it's all different.  The approaches in front are much steeper, and the greens don't dish in from the sides as much as they used to, because the center of the green has filled up more than the edges. It's a lot easier to look at in 3-D than it is to explain it on paper, but it's more significant than I had previously thought.  If Cypress just maps the greens the way they are and rebuilds them, they won't really be rebuilding MacKenzie's greens at all.

TD, this is one of the best descriptive illustrations I have read about the long term effects of top-dressing applications on green evolutions. What you describe at CP, in my opinion, has occurred at numerous other classic courses almost in identical fashion. I do not have the software or the know-hows to create a 3D representation of this, but if anyone has the time or the inclination, I believe it would be an eye-opener to all and a fantastic tool to demonstrate to memberships.

Dunlop

Yes, on your site I found it incredible how much Pinehurst's greens had changed and it completely explained why those greens are totally different from other Ross courses.  However, how is it that Pinehurst seemed to top dress their greens more than other clubs?  Is there anything inherent in grees on a sandy property being top dressed more for better surface quality?

Ciao

[Phil_the_Author]

Chip,

Bethpage Black's greens are an interesting story and depending upon your definition of "untouched" either only 2 or almost all of them have.

The 18th green was redesigned shapewise prior to the 2002 Open. Last winter the undulations on the 15th green were "softened" but the shape remains the same. As for the rest...

The following greens have had original putting surfaces lost to poor maintenance practices and especially the Black course along with the Blue were closed and left untouched from 1942 until the late summer of 1945 because of WW II. When the war ended the courses faced "major restorations" that lasted several months each in order to re-open them for play. The greens were not worked on other than a series of mowings to slowly get them back to a putting surface condition. In doing so they were greatly shrunk in size.

Starting after the 2002 Open a number of the greens had putting surfaces restored; in each case it was more a matter of mowing with minimal collar sod replacement. These are the front of 1, the back of 4, a small part of the back on 7, the entire front of 8 taken all the way to the crest leading down to the drop off to the pond, the back  of 11, the back of 14 to the top crest of the hill and behind the right-side bunker with an additional new front left tongue added. Other than the tongue on 14 all of the other work was returning putting surfaces that had been lost. More putting original putting surfaces are planned on being recovered in the future.

[Ian Andrew]

While playing Highlands Links this year, putting out on 18, it occurred to me that this course might be the poster child for what you ask, Chip. But, I do believe that there was some work done to at least one of the greens, if not more. But, certainly the closer there, is reminiscent of days long gone. Maybe Ian will see this and comment educate-ably.

All but the 13th are original.
The issue was flooding and the green was raised about 18 inches.

[Ian Andrew]

Bill Coore has subtly softened a couple of the greens at Prairie Dunes in recent years -- #2 for sure.  But, like the work we've done at a couple of courses, I doubt that Perry Maxwell himself would be able to tell what Bill did, if he were around to have a look.  If you are trying to be sympathetic, cutting 3-6 inches of slope out of a green is unnoticeable to most parties.

I was told that was all in the right corner to make the area available to pin

[Ian Andrew]

The two best greens at ANGC - 5 and 14 - are largely untouched.

The mounds at the front of the 5th were lowered substantially to increase the pin position in that area three years ago.

[Ian Andrew]

Has the 3rd green at ANGC been altered?  (I always, perhaps erroneously, thought that the entire 3rd hole was the last "orginal" at ANGC).

It's a Maxwell green.

Wexler:

The third green was the first of the seven altered by Perry Maxwell, the sum of his work apparently being the shaving of some front-right putting surface

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()