[Ed Homsey]

Throughout the U.S. Opens, there has been constant reference to the 'turtle-back Ross greens" that seem to define Pinehurst #2.  I have never played Pinehurst #2, but have played Mid Pines, Pine Needles, Southern Pines,Teugaga, Monroe Golf Club, Oak Hill West, Irondequoit CC, Brooklea CC, CC of Buffalo, and the front nine at Thendara.  I do not remember a turtle-back green on any one of those courses.  On the other hand, at the Balsams and Bretton Woods course in NH, I do recall greens that could be described as turtle-back.  Those courses are much older than the other courses I mentioned.  But, from my experience, the greens at Pinehurst #2 are not typical Ross greens.  What say ye??

[Ronald Montesano]

The number of non-turtle back greens at #2 is larger than the number of turtle back, by a fair bit.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'd agree with Ron.

I think that the configuration of the greens at PH# 2 has been over-hyped.

[Jim Nugent]

I think Ed's question is whether Ross built the turtle-back greens at P2, however many there are. 

[Mike Sweeney]

From Brad Klein of Golfweek:


http://golfweek.com/news/2011/apr/11/restoration-leaves-pinehurst-no-2-better-ever/

Over the years, the greens at Pinehurst No. 2 appeared to have become higher and more pronounced from their original (1935) construction, which had been closer to the surrounding natural grade level. There’s plenty of speculation as to the cause. It’s unclear if it occurred through the accumulation of aggressive topdressing, the steady splashing of sand from surrounding bunkers or even faulty reconstruction techniques that led to the greens acquiring steep out slopes.

Whatever the cause, the result was a set of greens that, far from being characteristic of Ross’ body of work, was in fact unique to Pinehurst No. 2.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Having played PH2 in the late 50's, early 60's, I'd have to disagree with some of Brad's comments.
In addition, "sand splash" is alleged to build up the perimeter of a green, not erode it.
And "top dressing" is applied evenly, and with rain and irrigation will follow the surface drainage flow to the perimeter, elevated above the surrounds.

If someone intimately familiar with PH2 could list the dates that any and all greens were "reconstructed" as mentioned by Brad, that might help in determining if and when a green might have been altered.

[Josh Tarble]

Ed,
Like bunker styles, I don't think you can really say "this is a Donald Ross green" because it seems he built so many different styles.  At my home club, Broadmoor CC in Indianapolis, we have  at least 4 crowned greens.  Now I don't think a few of them are nearly as severe as Pinehurst, but all of them are repelling in nature. 

For me, it's what is really appealing about Ross's work...each new course brings something new and different and usually very good.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Josh,

There's not one "Turtle Back" green at Mountain Ridge.

The 3rd and 6th holes on the second nine at Montclair are mild TB's

I don't recall any at Plainfield.

[Josh Tarble]

Patrick,
I'm no expert on Ross courses, but from what I've looked at and read, I'm amazed at the variety he was able to build into courses.  Also, knowing his fondness of Dornoch, I would believe he had at least some proclivity to build "turtle back" greens.

[michael j fay]

The greens at No. 2 are enigmatic. The present greens are the fourth set of greens that I have seen since 1990.

There were a relatively tame set of greens there in 1990 which were restored by the Nicklaus Co. with computer rendering done by Ed Connors. They were a little more crowned and defined than their predecessors. When Jones came in in the late 90's the greens were most decidedly put on steroids. Many of the slopes were greatened and the runoffs became much more pronounced. These greens were tweaked again for the next Open and made slightly more difficult. They are the greens (with a couple of Coore Crenshaw additions) that we saw this weekend.

I believe that the changes to the greens were done for Championship Golf. I think that they mimic in a small way the greens that I first saw there but are a great deal more angular and sloped. The business about build up of materials from topdressing is not likely. There are 44 courses in the Pinehurst area and No. 2 would be the only victim of aggressive topdressing.

As I remember the 1990 greens, many were crowned and some were severe. They were always cleverly difficult but not as enormously difficult as they are now. Specifically # 6,8,14 and 15 were always stringently crowned. The others have been helped along by the USGA.

I really liked the work done by Coore and Crenshaw but I can aver that the greens at No.2 are one of a kind. You see a little of the crowning on the No. 1 & No. 3 courses but little else anywhere in the 259 Ross designed courses I have played.

[Chip Gaskins]

Alice Dye said something interesting about Pinehurst No. 2's crowned greens in the official U.S. Open Magazine (p. 96):

"About the only thing that bothers me is that everyone acts like Donald Ross built those famous turtleback greens, and he didn't. Mr. Tufts himself told me they didn't have enough money to topdress the collars, just the putting surfaces. As a result, over the years the putting surfaces went up about 12 inches."

Dunlop White has done a lot of research on this topic as well.

[JWL]

Mr. Fay is correct that in 1988, the Nicklaus group (me) oversaw the reconstruction of the PH@ greens with Ed Connor digitizing each green with a grid system.  This was during the construction of the Pinehurst National course across the street.   The greens were put back exactly as they were, except for some very minor settlement issues that impeded proper surface drainage.   When the greens were floated and before grassed, I took two of the longest working caddies at PH2 and separately walked each green and letting them tell me if they 'felt' anything different in the new green surfaces.   Both, identified two minor areas on two different greens.   I worked with Bob Farren and Brad Kocher, and we did our best to make those areas in the greens exactly as they were before the project started.    I do not think the greens they played in this USOpen were the same greens entirely.   I wasn't there, so I am only going by what I watched on TV.
Of all the explanations on PH2 greens, I tend to go along with what Mr. Tufts said about topdressing practice.   Things get magnified as time goes on, and green speeds magnify what was magnified.   LOL

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,
I'm no expert on Ross courses, but from what I've looked at and read, I'm amazed at the variety he was able to build into courses.  Also, knowing his fondness of Dornoch, I would believe he had at least some proclivity to build "turtle back" greens.

Josh,

I maybe a little off in my recollection, but, when Brad Klein examined the Ross greens at Mountain Ridge, I believe he stated that they were most unusual, lending credence to your above post.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Alice Dye said something interesting about Pinehurst No. 2's crowned greens in the official U.S. Open Magazine (p. 96):

"About the only thing that bothers me is that everyone acts like Donald Ross built those famous turtleback greens, and he didn't. Mr. Tufts himself told me they didn't have enough money to topdress the collars, just the putting surfaces. As a result, over the years the putting surfaces went up about 12 inches."

Dunlop White has done a lot of research on this topic as well.

Chip,

I can believe the money issue.

But, I don't buy the one foot build up due to centralized top dressing issue.

Gravity, wind, rain, verticutting, irrigation and other maintenance practices tend to disperse topdressing.

And, tining, verticuttin and coring greens would seem to counter the concept of greens building up by a foot.

I'd like to establish when, during what specific time frame, they went from non-turtle back to turtle back, due to centralized top dressing.

[Terry Lavin]

Thank you Michael Fay and JWL. Facts are sometimes hard to come by. The cynical view then is that C&C restored Jones' re-do of Ross' work that evolved from sand to bermuda grassed greens?

[Patrick_Mucci]

There seems to be a conflict.

Michael Fay and JWL have put forth their position and Chip has quoted a third party regarding another position.

The Tufts family sold Pinehurst in 1970-71 to McLean Trucking/Diamondhead Corporation.
They went bankrupt in 1982 and RAC held it until 1984 when Club Corp bought it.

So, when did all of these alleged green renovations take place.

I doubt much was done when the Tufts family owned the property.

Ditto RAC

If the Tufts family skimped on topdressing it had to be before the 1960's. so when was it.

When did PH@ convert from sand greens to regular greens ?

Let's try to form a time line in order to ascertain if any substantive changes were made, OR if the stories about the greens are mostly myths.

JWL indicates that the greens were replicated not renovated when he was involved.

So, were the greens intentionally changed ?

Did they ever change ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Fay,

Montclair, in particular the second nine, has a number of domed or crowned greens.

The next time you're in the NYC area you should visit.

[hhuffines]

I remember reading with great interest the work Dunlop did on the changes over time.  Has it disappeared?  I can't seem to find it.

[Nigel Islam]

There seems to be a conflict.

Michael Fay and JWL have put forth their position and Chip has quoted a third party regarding another position.

The Tufts family sold Pinehurst in 1970-71 to McLean Trucking/Diamondhead Corporation.
They went bankrupt in 1982 and RAC held it until 1984 when Club Corp bought it.

So, when did all of these alleged green renovations take place.

I doubt much was done when the Tufts family owned the property.

Ditto RAC

If the Tufts family skimped on topdressing it had to be before the 1960's. so when was it.

When did PH@ convert from sand greens to regular greens ?

Let's try to form a time line in order to ascertain if any substantive changes were made, OR if the stories about the greens are mostly myths.

JWL indicates that the greens were replicated not renovated when he was involved.

So, were the greens intentionally changed ?

Did they ever change ?

The greens were converted from sand to grass in 1935.

[Joe Bausch]

From The Lurker:

JWL:

Over the last ten years or so I've heard and have looked into a story, particularly from a Mid-Atlantic architect who knew Connor and Peter Tufts well, that there was a bit of a mistake matching the heights of the surfaces of some of the greens with the surrounds (perimeters) to what they had been when they were redone during the Nicklaus/Connor 1988 project. The story goes that the solution was to basically tie down that additional green surface height around the perimeters to the surrounds of those greens (thereby creating some increased perimeter sloping). This was a story and a question that came up before the Opens and during the planning of the Architecture Forum before the Open. It seems that few, if any, were particularly interested in getting into the details of this story. Therefore, I have just one question for you that may say something regarding that story and that 1988 Nicklaus/Connor project you were involved in------eg: Were the Pinehurst #2 greens converted during that project from their original or previous construction to USGA Spec construction? I ask that question because the story includes the fact that since USGA Spec green construction involves a series of "layering" that the total height of that "layering" given the particular green bases selected totaled up a bit too high on the greens or some of the greens. Therefore, the centers of some or perhaps the whole green surfaces of some were a bit higher than previously and had to be "tied down" to their surrounds (perimeters). And, I certainly do agree with you that this situation certainly would have been magnified in the effects on playability when the green speeds were ramped up to 12 1/2 during the US Opens.

Thank you

[Chip Gaskins]

here is some of the info from Dunlop White about the greens over time with a good cross section and timeline on the last page.

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

[JWL]

Mr. Bausch
The charge given to the Nicklaus organization at that time was to oversee the reconstruction of the existing greens to a new USGA profile.
It was a complete profile, even with the 2" choker layer, that is often eliminated in today's USGA construction.
Although we identified several areas where the greens had shrunk in size, only a couple of instances was the existing green enlarged, primarily where we thought it was obvious that a pin placement had been lost.   I specifically remember the 3rd green toward the back left green section being such an instance.   But primarily, our charge was to duplicate what was there.  Thus, Ed Connor was hired to map the greens, as existed.   This was not a renovation or restoration project, per se.   I was working on the Pinehurst National course, and Pinehurst just asked Nicklaus organization if I could spend some time while in Pinehurst to oversee the work.    Kocher's crew did the construction.   They brought in new bent grass in refrigerated trucks, and the laying of the very thin layered bent sod was a site to behold at the time.  Using plywood, they layed the new sod out and it was darn near puttable with the seamlessness of their application.   It was impressive.
In regards to your comment about the tie-ins around the green, yes, we did float the edges to properly tie in with the surrounds, but we did not modify on purpose any of the existing green elevations or the surrounds.   We were not there to change #2 in any way, and we did our best to only replicate (with minor surface drainage problems corrected) the existing greens but with new USGA profile and new green turf type.
That's about all I recall, hope it helps your understanding.   I can't speak to the later renovation work.

[Ed Homsey]

So much for my naive speculation that the contrast between the Pinehurst #2 greens, and the greens on other noteworthy Ross courses, such as CC of Buffalo, or CC of Rochester, was a matter of his evolving ideas about the design and construction of greens.  Many other factors came into play, including the notion that the current Pinehurst #2 greens are not Ross greens, despite the constant proclamations of the TV guys.

[Patrick_Mucci]

From The Lurker:

JWL:

Over the last ten years or so I've heard and have looked into a story, particularly from a Mid-Atlantic architect who knew Connor and Peter Tufts well, that there was a bit of a mistake matching the heights of the surfaces of some of the greens with the surrounds (perimeters) to what they had been when they were redone during the Nicklaus/Connor 1988 project.

Joe,

Peter Tufts would have had absolutely ZERO to do, officially, with any project at Pinehurst post 1971

I knew and was friendly with Peter Tufts in the 60's and 70's.
I believe that he started a new course not far from Pinehurst after the Tufts family sold Pinehurst.
I believe the name of the course was "Seven Lakes"

The story goes that the solution was to basically tie down that additional green surface height around the perimeters to the surrounds of those greens (thereby creating some increased perimeter sloping). This was a story and a question that came up before the Opens and during the planning of the Architecture Forum before the Open. It seems that few, if any, were particularly interested in getting into the details of this story. Therefore, I have just one question for you that may say something regarding that story and that 1988 Nicklaus/Connor project you were involved in------eg:

Were the Pinehurst #2 greens converted during that project from their original or previous construction to USGA Spec construction?
 
I ask that question because the story includes the fact that since USGA Spec green construction involves a series of "layering" that the total height of that "layering" given the particular green bases selected totaled up a bit too high on the greens or some of the greens.

Therefore, the centers of some or perhaps the whole green surfaces of some were a bit higher than previously and had to be "tied down" to their surrounds (perimeters).

And, I certainly do agree with you that this situation certainly would have been magnified in the effects on playability when the green speeds were ramped up to 12 1/2 during the US Opens.

That does not make sense since the layers are uniform throughout the USGA green profile.

And, if the old greens were "bathtubbed" out, the depth of the "bathtubbing" and height of USGA green profile would match if the firm doing the work was in any way competent.

[Chip Gaskins]

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.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()