[Marc Huther]

I thought the greens were fair to the holes they were on.

[Sven Nilsen]

Two photos, the second and fourth greens, from 1936:





Anyone have access to good photos of the current contours?

[Patrick_Mucci]

He's alive!

Mr. Mucci:

Regarding your Replies #36 and #40, you really should read carefully Dunlop's article and Richard Mandell's new book (2013) on the entire history of Pinehurst. Once you've done that you'd been in a far better position to question if changes took place to #2 and any of its greens----when, how and why.

When Diamondhead bought Pinehurst in 1971 they implemented what they called a "modernization plan" to #2. They referred to the La Costa model. It was a form of modern age so-called improvement citing the necessity of basic golf and architectural "standardization."

Tom Paul,

I played PH#2, regularly, pre and post Diamondhead taking control, did you ?

Tell us exactly what changes TO THE GREENS that Diamondhead made.
Which greens ?  And, in what year ?

Diamondhead did NOT touch the internal contouring of the greens on # 2 in 1971 or subsequently.

You've said you played Pinehurst from the 1950s or 1960s to 2000 and noticed no difference in the course or the greens.

That's not what I stated, that's what you've erroneously concluded.
Take two aspirin and reread my replies in the morning.

But, I'll repeat myself, Diamondhead did NOT touch the internal contourning of the putting surfaces at # 2.

But, you wouldn't know that because you have little to no experience at PH#2 pre and post McClean

By that do you mean you think no changes ever took place because you didn't notice them?

With virtually no personal experience at Pinehurst, how would you know if there were changes, what they were and in what year they occured.
In that context, with virtually no first hand experience at Pinehurst pre and post 1971 in what context would you be able to judge my answers ?

Mandell's book quotes Richard and Peter Tufts as being really disappointed with those changes.
He also quotes P.J Boatright (the director of the Carolina Golf Association before joining the USGA) as certainly noticing the changes to the course and the greens.

PJ Boatwright joined the USGA in 1959 and became the Exec Director in 1969, prior to Diamondhead's acquisition in 1971.
If PJ Boatwright was the Exec Director of the CGA, why didn't he know about your donut theory on the topdressing of PH# 2's greens.
Wouldn't he be intimately familiar with PH#2 as the Exec Director of the CGC versus post 1959 when he began working for the USGA ?


Again, once you've read Dunlop's and Mandell's accounts very carefully I think you will be in a far better position to question their accounts of changes to Pinehurst #2, including the greens.

Having played PH#2's greens for at least a week every year, pre and post Diamondhead's acquisition, I think I'm in far, far, far better position to pass on the status of PH#2's greens, than you, wouldn't you agree ?

And, to repeat myself, Diamondhead NEVER touched, NEVER altered the internal contouring of the greens at PH# 2 in 1971.

It was only in 1988 that the greens, the internal putting surfaces were revamped.

Since you've read both Dunlop's treatise and Mandell's book, why don't you list the exact changes to each green along with the date that they took  place.

I think you'll find that you're out of your leaque on this subject.
The internal contouring of PH#2's greens were NEVER touched by Diamondhead as you allege.

It was your prior contention that the greens changed because they were only topdressed in the center, and not toward the perimeter.

That's also not true.
They were topdressed out to their perimeter.

But now, you've changed your tune.

I guess that's because you don't have any substantive support for that position, along with the fact that your theory wouldn't explain why only select greens became crowned, versus all the greens.  Or is it now your theory that they skimped on top dressing on every other green or every third green or every fourth green ?  If every green didn't get "crowned" that would indicate that not ever green experienced "skimping" on the top dressing, which would indicate that it wasn't a "systemic" program, which would tend to nullify, if not render void, your theory or the promotion of the theory that the Tufts family directed the Superintendent to ONLY top dress the centers of the greens.

With little, if any personal experience at PH# 2, you're now claiming that Diamondhead changed the internal contouring of the greens post 1971.
That's absolutely FALSE.
Diamondhead NEVER altered the internal contouring of the putting surfaces.

That's a figment of your imagination, or your inability to read with a modicum of comprehension.

I suggest that you reread Dunlop's treatise.
I think you'll find that Diamondhead's alleged work occured at the perimeter of the greens.

You stated:

Quote # 1:

However, after just reading Dunlop White's excellent article on the entire history of #2's greens (I would suspect that some may question the accuracy of Dunlop's account but I would challenge any of them to try to do it with actual and factual evidence/information rather than simply speculation), it would appear that the Nicklaus/Connor project was the first time #2's greens actually had their evolved surfaces completely removed throughout (at least their basic centers) to reconstruct the subsurface profile to USGA green specs.[/b][/u]

So, here you admit that the FIRST time PH#2's greens had their EVOLVED surfaces completely removed throughout was when the Nicklaus/Connor project was implemented.

But, that was in 1988.

You claimed that Diamondhead systemically altered the greens in 1971.

Then, you contradict yourself by stating that the FIRST time the greens were systemically reconstructed was in 1988.

I think you're confused, maybe that's due to your lack of first hand experience regarding PH#2's greens from the late 50's through 1988.

 

[Jason Thurman]

Sven, I opened "Discovering Donald Ross" a few nights ago and skipped through a few pages before bed. The photo you posted of the second green is, I believe, one of the photos in the book as well. The second green may be the best at Pinehurst even today, and it still retains quite a bit of internal contour though it appears to have shifted pretty substantially. In particular, the apparent swale beyond the ridge that runs across the front right of the green in the 1930s photo has disappeared, as the green now rises to a plateau/knob beyond that ridge.

There is also a great photo of the approach to the sixth hole in the book, that clearly shows the front of the green lying at grade-level. The current green on six is a huge departure from that.

[Ed Homsey]

Great pictures posted by Sven.  Jason describes some of the differences between the greens, as shown in those pictures, and today's greens.  Indicates those two 1938 greens were changed.  It would be great to know when, why, and by whom, in order to have a better understanding of the evolution of Pinehurst #2.  But, seems to me that the bottom-line question being addressed in this thread is:  Can the current Pinehurst #2 greens legitimately be considered Ross greens?       

[Pete Lavallee]

Ed,

Have you read the linked article by Dunlop White on the Pinehurst #2 greens evolution? It seems to make great sense to me.

Ross designs greens much closer to the ground in 1938.
Bunker lips were "stiffened", raised up to keep water from running into the bunkers from the green itself.
Aggresive top dressing built up the green surfaces; up to an inch a year of sand was added and the Resort didn't aerate (removing material) until the late 1960's.
Show me a single bunker at PH#2 now that has it's lip higher than the green surface.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ed,

Have you read the linked article by Dunlop White on the Pinehurst #2 greens evolution? It seems to make great sense to me.

Ross designs greens much closer to the ground in 1938.
Bunker lips were "stiffened", raised up to keep water from running into the bunkers from the green itself.
Aggresive top dressing built up the green surfaces; up to an inch a year of sand was added and the Resort didn't aerate (removing material) until the late 1960's.
Show me a single bunker at PH#2 now that has it's lip higher than the green surface.

Pete,

Brad Kocher, who was the director of Maintenance for # 2 since 1984 disagrees with that theory, as do I.

You seem to be in conflict with TEPaul who claims that they skimped on topdressing, whereas you claim they were aggressive with top dressing.

Your statement is also misleading with respect to the sand applied to the greens.
The way your statement is worded, it could lead the uninformed, like TEPaul, to conclude that the greens got one inch higher every year.

What's your particular history with PH# 2, specifically ?

[Pete Lavallee]

Pat,

Here is a link to Dunlop White's article about the evolution of Pinehurst #2's greens. Have you read it?


http://www.dunlopwhite.com/www.dunlopwhite.com/Restoration_and_Tree_Management_files/GAV-5_revisions.pdf

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Here is a link to Dunlop White's article about the evolution of Pinehurst #2's greens. Have you read it?

Yes,

I've read it and I've reread it........... carefully.

Did you miss his quoting of Brad Kocher, the Director of Maintenance from 1984 thru the time that Dunlop wrote his article ?

I noticed that you avoided answering the question I posed to you.
What's your personal experience with PH# 2 ?


http://www.dunlopwhite.com/www.dunlopwhite.com/Restoration_and_Tree_Management_files/GAV-5_revisions.pdf

[Pete Lavallee]

Pat,

I have never been to Pinehurst and therefore aren't stating facts, just asking questions.

There does appear to be a dramatic difference between the photos from the 1930's and now. Do you dispute that? If so we are all interested in how the change occurred; was it a happy accident or planned change to ratchet up difficulty?

I do believe sand can build up a putting surface over time. My home course Balboa Park converted all it's greens to USGA specs in 1993, including the practice green. They core aerate and top dress twice a year. Since the practice green is large there is a sprinkler head in the middle, that sprinkler head is now two inches below the level of the green. So if Pinehurst did top dress and not remove anything through aeration prior to  the 1960's, accumulation could result. This would have occurred before you started playing there regularly.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I have never been to Pinehurst and therefore aren't stating facts, just asking questions.

There does appear to be a dramatic difference between the photos from the 1930's and now. Do you dispute that?

Pete,

I question the conclusions drawn from limited evidence.

If we had numerous photos of each green, taken from the same angles, every 5 or 10 years, from 1935 to current date, we would be better positioned to draw reasoned conclusions.

Absent that information, we're mostly guessing in the dark.

If so we are all interested in how the change occurred; was it a happy accident or planned change to ratchet up difficulty?

According to the sources quoted, White, Mandell and Kocher, the ONLY construction on the internal configuration of the greens took place in 1988.
And, a party intimately involved with the organization involved in that project has informed us that the contouring was replicated.

I do believe sand can build up a putting surface over time.


I don't buy into that theory.
And if I did, I would buy into it on a "uniform", not a random basis.
In other words, the entire internal putting surface would be impacted, not just random or select areas, taking into account such factors as wind, rain and gravity.

My home course Balboa Park converted all it's greens to USGA specs in 1993, including the practice green. They core aerate and top dress twice a year. Since the practice green is large there is a sprinkler head in the middle, that sprinkler head is now two inches below the level of the green. So if Pinehurst did top dress and not remove anything through aeration prior to  the 1960's, accumulation could result. This would have occurred before you started playing there regularly.

But, we were told by a self proclaimed expert that they skimped on top dressing.

Alot also depends upon the top dressing mix and how much rain/irrigation the greens are subject to.

Conversely, I've been playing a golf course for close to 60 years and very little has changed in terms of the internal configuration of the putting surfaces.  And, they aerate and top dress routinely.

If it occured before I started playing there, why did they stop once I began playing there ?
It doesn't stand to reason that they ceased top dressing.

In addition, my dad, who began playing there in the 30's, never mentioned to me that he noticed a change in the greens.
That doesn't mean that there wasn't a change, only that he hadn't noticed any.

I think the difference in our opinions is that you want to believe that there's been substantive changes and I want to see proof of substantive changes............. first

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ed,

Have you read the linked article by Dunlop White on the Pinehurst #2 greens evolution? It seems to make great sense to me.

Ross designs greens much closer to the ground in 1938.

How is that conclusion drawn ?

Bunker lips were "stiffened", raised up to keep water from running into the bunkers from the green itself.

I've noticed that propensity, but, it may be soil driven.

For example, you do NOT see that at Seminole.
In fact, it's just the opposite.
And, Seminole gets plenty of rain.

Aggresive top dressing built up the green surfaces; up to an inch a year of sand was added and the Resort didn't aerate (removing material) until the late 1960's.

In 36 years, that's three feet !
I think it's a myth that people like to believe.

Show me a single bunker at PH#2 now that has it's lip higher than the green surface.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find that situation on many courses built on sandy soil.
You could say the same thing about Seminole.

You took a particular, which may apply to a limited number of courses, and expanded it to a universal.
As such, your conclusion is seriously flawed.

[Joe Bausch]

From The Lurker (one last salvo?!):

"I think the difference in our opinions is that you want to believe that there's been substantive changes and I want to see proof of substantive changes........first."

Mr. P. Mucci:

In that case I suggest you read Richard Mandell's 2013 history of Pinehurst very carefully.........FIRST. If you do not know all the details of what that book says, you have done insufficient research and therefore you probably have insufficient knowledge of the details of the history of Pinehurst #2, including its greens.  

[Chip Gaskins]

an honest question to the supers out there (i have worked on a maintenance crew at a course, but a clay based course).

do you really need to top-dress purely sand based greens when you aerate them?  where i worked we top-dressed with sandy to try and get the clay based soil under the green less compact and, well, more sandy.  if the greens (like I assume #2) are built on pure sand, then do you have to aggressively top-dress them?

[Mark_Fine]

The turtle back greens at Pinehurst #2 are nothing like Ross designed and I have commented on this on other threads.  It is a joke that the TV announcers kept saying they were "Ross" greens and typical of his style!  Someone really needed to educate them as they mislead soooo many people.  I joked to Shackelford that now we are going to be getting phone calls from owners of Ross courses to "restore" their lost crowned greens 😳😁😳.  By the way, a false front on a green IS a feature Ross used often (like the one shown at #11 at Plainfield CC) but that is NOT a turtle back green like those at #2. 

[Tony Ristola]

to me this ranks right up there with Raynor's routing of Cypress Point in GCA folk lore....

assuming Mr White's research is correct (and it seems to be supported by several other authorities form the Tuffs family to the Dye family and on and on) then why do we all allow the elephant stay in the room....these current #2 greens are NOT what Donald Ross built.

Chip,

Obviously Ross didn't build USGA spec greens.

But aside from that, can anyone tell us exactly what Ross built ?

You can't restore to an unknown or vague memory.

So, how does each green differ today from when they were grassed in 1935 ?

Does anyone really know ?

Or do myths abound ?

Donald Ross Woudn't Reecognize the Greens, Ron Whitten, GD, 2005 is a pretty good article about the Ross greens evolution and how they became "turtle backed". Long story short... years of topdressing common Bermuda built up the surfaces, and at some point the new owners took a dozer to the sharp trransitions that evolved from decades of top dressing... equals "turtle backs".

The greens were not built according to any plan. I recall a published story (told by Dan Maples) about the greens being rebuilt in prep for the 1936 PGA. Donald Ross would walk the course and Ellis Maples would carry out the construction... the mule teams would build and float out the greens... the contouring/floating often taking more than a week.

So,no plans, and it seems no "as-builts" either.

[Patrick_Mucci]

to me this ranks right up there with Raynor's routing of Cypress Point in GCA folk lore....

assuming Mr White's research is correct (and it seems to be supported by several other authorities form the Tuffs family to the Dye family and on and on) then why do we all allow the elephant stay in the room....these current #2 greens are NOT what Donald Ross built.

Chip,

Obviously Ross didn't build USGA spec greens.

But aside from that, can anyone tell us exactly what Ross built ?

You can't restore to an unknown or vague memory.

So, how does each green differ today from when they were grassed in 1935 ?

Does anyone really know ?

Or do myths abound ?

Donald Ross Woudn't Reecognize the Greens, Ron Whitten, GD, 2005 is a pretty good article about the Ross greens evolution and how they became "turtle backed". Long story short... years of topdressing common Bermuda built up the surfaces, and at some point the new owners took a dozer to the sharp trransitions that evolved from decades of top dressing... equals "turtle backs".

Ron Whitten also wrote that the Jadna Polana golf course was a modern day Winged Foot
Nothing could be further from the truth.
He also wrote that the clubhouse was nothing special.
Again, nothing could be further from the truth.
Hence, I'm not prepared to accept Ron Whitten's word as "the Gospel"

As to "top dressing" causing the greens to change into "turtle back" greens, that's a myth.
If top dressing had that effect, every old green in America would be a "turtle back" green.
Have NGLA's, Merion's, Winged Foot's, GCGC's, TCC's, Pine Valleys greens become "Turtle Back" greens ?
Top dressing is applied uniformly.
Gravity, rain, irrigation, wind and traffic have some dispersal impact, but, as in "My Cousin Vinny" do the laws of physics cease to exist at PH#2 ?
The "top dressing" premise is a myth.   

The greens were not built according to any plan. I recall a published story (told by Dan Maples) about the greens being rebuilt in prep for the 1936 PGA. Donald Ross would walk the course and Ellis Maples would carry out the construction... the mule teams would build and float out the greens... the contouring/floating often taking more than a week.

They weren't grassed until 1935, hence I wonder if Ellis was off by a year

So,no plans, and it seems no "as-builts" either.

Which goes back to my question, if there were no plans, no field drawings and no "as-builts", what is everybody claiming that they should be rebuilt to ?

[Pete Lavallee]

Pat,

You fail to understand that after grassing in 1936, Pinehurst had common Bermuda greens which were very slow and grainy; nothing like the bent grass or poa annua greens of the courses you mentioned from the northeast. In order to have them play anywhere close to their northern cousins they had to be top dressed to provide a smooth roll. Again we have absolute proof the Pinehurst didn't begin to aerate until the late 1960's. Once the sand is applied, the grass grows over it, how exactly will gravity pull it off the putting surface after this has occurred? It a simple equation of mater applied with no matter removed, hence a build up.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

You fail to understand that after grassing in 1936, Pinehurst had common Bermuda greens which were very slow and grainy;


Pete,

Just about every course in the South went to common Bermuda for decade upon decade.

I've played on Common Bermuda every year from the late 50's to 1991.

As to "slow", slow in comparison to what ?  Today's greens ?   Bent in Boston in September ?

Pinehurst's greens were terrific and no one I knew, in the years I competed on them, complained about their speed

nothing like the bent grass or poa annua greens of the courses you mentioned from the northeast.

I'm aware of the geographic and climatic differences

In order to have them play anywhere close to their northern cousins they had to be top dressed to provide a smooth roll.

Nonsense.
There was never a competition with Northern courses/cousins.
Pinehurst was a fall/winter/spring resort, not a summer resort for golf

Again we have absolute proof the Pinehurst didn't begin to aerate until the late 1960's.

I've read that, but, would like to see the proof.
Unfortunately, I can't reach my old friend Peter Tufts.

Once the sand is applied, the grass grows over it,

It that's the case, why hasn't every green in Florida that gets top dressed with sand elevated over the years ?.

how exactly will gravity pull it off the putting surface after this has occurred?

Gravity doesn't allow the top dressed sand to sit on the grass, Gravity takes it to a point where it can go no lower based upon the density of the medium blocking it.
when the sprinklers are turned on the sand is washed to the lowest possible point.
When it rains, the sand is washed to the lowest possible point.
When the wind blows, the sand is blown away
When the greens are mowed, sand is dispursed.

All of these factors prevent greens from elevating.

NGLA, GCGC and other greens have been in existance for over 100 years, yet they remain fairly static.
According to you and others they should be ten feet higher, rising about an inch or more each year.
But, that doesn't happen does it.

It's a premise that's a myth.





It a simple equation of mater applied with no matter removed, hence a build up.

[Jason Thurman]

If the sand from topdressing simply disperses after application, what do you purpose is the point of topdressing? What magical health effect does turf gain from having a layer of sand applied that then is irrigated and mown away?

I understand the conventional goals of the topdressing process. But it sounds like Pat has knowledge of the laws of physics and agronomy that neither I nor any superintendent or historian are aware of. I'd love to be edified.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If the sand from topdressing simply disperses after application, what do you purpose is the point of topdressing?

Do you think that top dressing remains perfectly consistent in it's application ?
That gravity, rain, irrigation, wind and traffic have NO EFFECT on the consistency of the top dressing ?

What magical health effect does turf gain from having a layer of sand applied that then is irrigated and mown away?

"AWAY" to where ?

Other areas of the green ?
Durham ?
Norfork ?

I understand the conventional goals of the topdressing process.

Then how do you explain, with all of your wisdom, why the greens at NGLA, GCGC and other courses about 100 years old, haven't seen their greens rise by 10 feet ?

But it sounds like Pat has knowledge of the laws of physics and agronomy that neither I nor any superintendent or historian are aware of.
I'd love to be edified.

Morons can't be edified, they even fail to come to grips with common sense.

Tell us why the greens at Pine Valley, NGLA, GCGC and others haven't risen by many feet after 100 or so years of top dressing.

Or, in your opinion, have they, and the rest of us just don't see it ?

Lastly, would you detail your personal playing experiences at Pinehurst # 2 over the last 50 years.

[Jason Thurman]

Morons can't be edified, they even fail to come to grips with common sense.

You have proven that, as in face of copious historic evidence and research, as well as photographs, you still believe that the greens haven't changed since the '50s because you haven't noticed it. The only thing your incoherent responses are proving is that your observational skills are poor, since you've failed to observe the historically documented changes to the greens at Pinehurst over all your years visiting there.

Since morons can't be edified, I won't bother attempting to explain to you how the conventional topdressing and aerification process is supposed to work, or how the process employed in the early years of Pinehurst's grass greens would have been different. I think the rest of the people posting on this thread already understand. I still await your responses to my questions: What do you believe to be the point of topdressing, and what health effect does turf gain from having a layer of sand applied that then disperses away as you insist it does? My prediction is that you won't answer them, which will only further prove what you've already proven throughout this thread: you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Morons can't be edified, they even fail to come to grips with common sense.

You have proven that, as in face of copious historic evidence and research, as well as photographs, you still believe that the greens haven't changed since the '50s because you haven't noticed it.


That's not what I stated, but, since you're an expert on Pinehurst # 2's greens, why don't you tell us how they've changed and when.

Let's start with # 1, tell us how that green has changed and when those changes took place.

The only thing your incoherent responses are proving is that your observational skills are poor, since you've failed to observe the historically documented changes to the greens at Pinehurst over all your years visiting there.

What historically documented changes ?
Didn't you read Dunlop White's treatise ?
The first time the internal contours at PH#2 were altered was in 1988.

Since morons can't be edified, I won't bother attempting to explain to you how the conventional topdressing and aerification process is supposed to work, or how the process employed in the early years of Pinehurst's grass greens would have been different.

That's because you don't have a clue as to how top dressing has or hasn't affected each and every green at Pinehurst.

I think the rest of the people posting on this thread already understand.

Understand what ? 
That some schmuck with zero personal experience at Pinehurst # 2 is proclaiming that he's an expert on their greens.

I still await your responses to my questions:

What do you believe to be the point of topdressing,

I knew the benefits of top dressing before you were born.
You're a "Johnny Come Lately" a know it all who knows far less than he thinks he knows.

But, since you're such an expert, what was the precise mix of the top dressing applied to PH#2's greens in 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and today.

and what health effect does turf gain from having a layer of sand applied that then disperses away as you insist it does?

If you claim that the application of top dressing remains perfectly consistent, wouldn't the entire putting surface elevate uniformly ?
And, if the putting surface elevated uniformly, due to the consistent application of top dressing, then wouldn't all of the contours and slopes be preserved exactly as they were originally ?

You have a habit of NOT answering my questions, probably because you have neither the knowledge base (data) or the intellect (intelligence)

My prediction is that you won't answer them, which will only further prove what you've already proven throughout this thread: you have no idea what you're talking about.

Remind us again, what's your personal experience with the greens at PH#2 ?
It's a simple question that you continue to avoid.

You are such a putz, although schmekle is probably a better term.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,

Against my better judgement, I'll try to educate you regarding top dressing and dispersal patterns.

Let's take C.B. Macdonald/Seth Raynor's/Charles Banks classic "thumb print" or "horseshoe" green.

A green with a pronounced spine rising above the rest of the putting surface.

Contrary to your moronic beliefs, gravity, rain, wind, irrigation, mowing and foot traffic all influence the application of top dressing.

How?, you moronically ask.

This is how:  If you apply the top dressing in a perfectly uniform manner (difficult) what happens to the top dressing that covers the spine ?

You wouldn't know this, even though you think you're smart, but, it gets dispersed.

Where does gravity take it ?     To the lowest point possible
Where does rain wash it ?         To the lowest point possible
Where does irrigation take it ?    To the lowest point possible
Where does the wind take it ?   To other lower points on the green and beyond.

And, where are those lower and owest points ?
They're NOT on the spine, as you insist.
Rather, they are at the base and beyond the base of the spine.
Ergo, the spine loses it's elevation relative to the surrounding floor of the putting surface.

Now an intelligent person would understand this and wouldn't need me to explain it to them, but, we know you don't fit that mold.

So now, try to expand your thinking beyond the example of the "spine" and apply it to other features, other contours.

Do you still think that the application of top dressing is both uniform and static, that top dressing affects every portion of the green equally ?

You have so much to learn and I don't have the inclination to help a know it all.

[Tony Ristola]

to me this ranks right up there with Raynor's routing of Cypress Point in GCA folk lore....

assuming Mr White's research is correct (and it seems to be supported by several other authorities form the Tuffs family to the Dye family and on and on) then why do we all allow the elephant stay in the room....these current #2 greens are NOT what Donald Ross built.

Chip,

Obviously Ross didn't build USGA spec greens.

But aside from that, can anyone tell us exactly what Ross built ?

You can't restore to an unknown or vague memory.

So, how does each green differ today from when they were grassed in 1935 ?

Does anyone really know ?

Or do myths abound ?

Donald Ross Woudn't Reecognize the Greens, Ron Whitten, GD, 2005 is a pretty good article about the Ross greens evolution and how they became "turtle backed". Long story short... years of topdressing common Bermuda built up the surfaces, and at some point the new owners took a dozer to the sharp trransitions that evolved from decades of top dressing... equals "turtle backs".

Ron Whitten also wrote that the Jadna Polana golf course was a modern day Winged Foot
Nothing could be further from the truth.
He also wrote that the clubhouse was nothing special.
Again, nothing could be further from the truth.
Hence, I'm not prepared to accept Ron Whitten's word as "the Gospel"

As to "top dressing" causing the greens to change into "turtle back" greens, that's a myth.
If top dressing had that effect, every old green in America would be a "turtle back" green.
Have NGLA's, Merion's, Winged Foot's, GCGC's, TCC's, Pine Valleys greens become "Turtle Back" greens ?
Top dressing is applied uniformly.
Gravity, rain, irrigation, wind and traffic have some dispersal impact, but, as in "My Cousin Vinny" do the laws of physics cease to exist at PH#2 ?
The "top dressing" premise is a myth.  

The greens were not built according to any plan. I recall a published story (told by Dan Maples) about the greens being rebuilt in prep for the 1936 PGA. Donald Ross would walk the course and Ellis Maples would carry out the construction... the mule teams would build and float out the greens... the contouring/floating often taking more than a week.

They weren't grassed until 1935, hence I wonder if Ellis was off by a year

So,no plans, and it seems no "as-builts" either.

Which goes back to my question, if there were no plans, no field drawings and no "as-builts", what is everybody claiming that they should be rebuilt to ?

The greens you cite are cool season grasses, not common Bermuda.

I do believe Pete Dye also noted the greens lost their forms due to topdressing and bulldozing the edges when the ownership changed. They topdressed the greens to the tune of up to a quarter to half inch per year, but not the surrounds. With that you get a definite build-up. Pete Dye noted the newly rebuilt 17th green at TPC Sawgrass showed signs from topdressing.

As did the "Pinehurst Character"... meaning the loss of native areas being replaced by lush turf.

But hey Pat... believe what you like. To me it makes more than common sense.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()