Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: T_MacWood on June 05, 2003, 07:39:59 PM
-
Some of Ross's most brilliant designs featured sand flashed bunkers - Pinehurst #2, Seminole, Oyster Harbors and Aronimink. All have been restored with stereotypical Ross grass faced bunkers. Are there any examples of Ross courses restored with flashed bunkers? Beverly?
-
Tom
Were the bunkers at Seminole, Pinehurst, Oyster Harbours, Aronomink, etc. "flashed" when Ross designed them, or did they become "flashed" through splash build up (or maintenance practices, or whatever) over the years? If the latter, aren't the "stereotypical" grass faced bunkers a more honest and sympathetic "restoration?"
-
Seminole is certainly not grassed today face down - there's considerable flashing of sand, at least half way up the face.
Pinehurst also has some flashing up today that remains - courtesy of ongoing restoration work by the maintenance staff, for the most part.
I can think of many Ross "renovations" or "modernizations" done in the previous decades where the sand was flashed all the way up. It makes for a maintenance nightmare, which is one reason it's not being repeated to the extent that was so common.
-
Brad
Are you saying that Ross himself did not do "flashed" bunkers, and that the feature that Tom MacW mentions on the original post is the result of post-Ross practices and happenstances rather than the great man's "design."? You, if anyone, should know.
Rich
-
Seminole, Oyster Harbors and Aronimink had flashed bunkers from the beginning. Pinehurst #2 I'm not sure, but they did have flashed bunkers right after the course reopened when Ross grassed the greens and redesigned a few of the holes in the 30's - so I suspect that was his intent.
Brad
Do you think restoring the Ross flashed bunkers at these courses would have resulted in a maintenance nightmare?
-
My understanding with Seminole was that the original Ross bunkering was flashed up fairly high but that the club at some point misunderstood that that was Ross's doing and thought it was the result of a Dick Wilson redo (and that they believed Ross's bunkering was more grassed down). I believe one of the reasons for that was the misdating of a photograph which made them assume a change was done by Dick Wilson when he did some work at Seminole (probably primarily moving #18 green). But today the bunkering at Seminole is sort of semi flasked up. The photo of the fronting bunkering of #6 both of Ross's orginal bunkering and today is a good example.
I don't think that Ross flashed bunkering is an endangered species though. The reason Aronimink went to grassed down bunkering has been documented on here over and over (it was because that's the way Ross's field drawings called for them to be).
GMGC's recent restoration by Hanse changed the Ross bunkering from flashed up to grassed down. We did it for maintenance reasons primarily. The bunkering at GMGC was probably placed by Ross but not designed by him in detail. At least we don't have hole plans or details of bunker construction from Ross. I believe the details of our bunker construction was probably done originally by a member by the name of Weston Hibbs who acted as a glorified construction foreman from 1916-1919.
But the important thing to remember about Ross is he did all kinds of bunker looks, shapes, whatnot. One only has to read Ross's book--"Golf Has Never Failed Me" and the sections on bunkering to tell that. It may be somewhat true though that most people assume that Ross only did grassed down bunkering the same way people assume that Ross always did crowned greens. Neither assumption is remotely true. Matter of fact I just heard the real story of how Pinehurst's greens came to be crowned. It's an extremely surprising story to say the least.
-
"But today the bunkering at Seminole is sort of semi FLASKED up."
Classic tyop, particularly in the context of Wilson's work at Seminole........
PS--Tom
There have been a number of posts here previously about how the greens at #2 were crowned through years of top-dressing. Do you have more to tell us on that subject?
-
"There have been a number of posts here previously about how the greens at #2 were crowned through years of top-dressing. Do you have more to tell us on that subject?"
Rich:
The story that Pinehurst's greens came to be crowned because of top-dressing is just not true. And if one thinks about that for a moment how could that even happen? That would seem to be sort of an illogical result of topdressing. How they came to be crowned is vastly different than that but I'm not going to tell the story on here--not yet anyway. If Brad Klein reads this post maybe he'd care to tell the real story. If he doesn't want to, I don't either--not now anyway--except to say that the reason they came to be crowned emanated from a construction mistake.
-
Tom MacWood,
Are the bunkers on # 2, #3, # 4, # 5, #6, # 11,# 13, # 14, 15 not flashed at Seminole ?
-
No, not flashed as Ross originally had them. The bunkers now have a rolled over look that is common on many Ross courses - with a grass face along the leading edge of the bunker. Semi-flashed according to Tom Paul - a good description.
Here is excerpt from an interview in Golf World:
"He redid the bunkering at the famed Seminole GC in Florida, considered one of Ross' finest. 'Seminole was entirely different,' Silva says. 'They didn't have any old photography. Dick Wilson completely redid all the bunkers after World War II. There's not a member who remembers what the Ross bunkers were like. So we tried to make it look like Ross, by rolling the grass over the bunker faces. I can't say I restored them to exactly what Donald had. But the members like them.' "
-
I loved Seminole when I played it last fall, but I did not like the look of Silva's semi-rolled faced bunkers. They looked like they were done by a committee. They fall somewhere between flashed and the classic Ross "Carolina" rolled face. To my eye, an unhappy compromise.
Bob
-
Tom P
Don't be so childish. Pleae tell us how Ross mistakenly created those crown greens at Pinehurst, There are many architects and shapers participating and lurking on here who would like to know!
-
"Tom P
Don't be so childish. Please tell us how Ross mistakenly created those crown greens at Pinehurst....."
Rich:
Go cut bait! ;)
And you have to learn how not to jump to wrong conclusions Pal. Where did I say that 'Ross mistakenly created those crowned greens at Pinehurst'?
How about the fact that Ross never created crowned greens at Pinehurst at all?
-
I can see that it's going to be a fun day!
-
You'll have to wait, Dan. I'm goin' fishin'!
-
There is a figure in the Tufts Archives titled " Donald J. Ross - Golf Architect , Various Types of Mounds & Bunkers. "
The series of bunker sketches includes a " Fig 4, Type of bunker dished out of the face of a mound with a sanded face. "
Note the 'sanded face' part.
No........ the sketch is not signed and dated by Donald Ross ......... but sketch was 'probably' prepared by Ross' office as best I recall my discussions with archivist.
Old photos of Oakland Hills (w/ Ross in the photo) showed bunkers with flashed up faces.
Anyone would have gone crazy designing 350+ courses, on site at perhaps 150-300 courses, using multiple superintendents, etc. using one bunker style over a 40 year period.
-
John;
You're absolutely right, and Ross detailed much the same thing in his writings for "Golf Has Never Failed Me".
Like Tom MacWood, I'm a bit irked by the fact that so many seem to think there is a "stereotypical" Ross bunker style when historical pictures clearly indicate otherwise.
I certainly would like to see more clubs and restoration architects sensitized to that fact.
-
Tom MacWood,
Here is excerpt from an interview in Golf World:
"He redid the bunkering at the famed Seminole GC in Florida, considered one of Ross' finest. 'Seminole was entirely different,' Silva says. 'They didn't have any old photography. Dick Wilson completely redid all the bunkers after World War II. There's not a member who remembers what the Ross bunkers were like. So we tried to make it look like Ross, by rolling the grass over the bunker faces. I can't say I restored them to exactly what Donald had. But the members like them.' "
If the above is true, how does anybody know what the original bunkers at Seminole looked like. Silva indicates that there were no photographic records and that none of the members recalled the bunkers pre-Wilson.
I'm puzzled as to how you know what the bunkers looked like when Silva and Seminole didn't, what am I missing ?
-
How many Ross courses can people name where the architect restored "flashed" bunkers?? Frankly, I can't think of any!
-
Rich, et al
in my Ross biography I clearly document that Ross built all sorts of bunkers. John Stiles is right about this (above). The original photos of Seminole clearly show how heavily flashed they were. Brian Silva's work was a partial recapturing of the external shapes of the bunkers and a partial return to Ross, but it was compromised as per orders of the folks who rule Seminole and Silva did a good job of what he was asked to do.
Sometimes flashing up results in maintenance washouts; it all depends on soil type and local conditions. If water enters the top of the bunkers from surrounding drainage areas, there will be washouts. Clay gets compromsied more quickly than sand or loam. Pinehurst was flashed to some extent w/o threat of washouts as no water enters them from above.
I also document three things about Pinehurst greens:
-Ross built them (in 1935, not before) at or just barely above native grade
-years of top-dressing after his death and the effects of years of sand accumulating on them from surrounding bunkers and bunker shots led to the greens acquiring a two-foot crown
-each time they were "restored" the greens kept their raised crowns. They were not even mapped until 1962 by Peter Tufts, by which time they had become rather crowned. When they were rebuilt in the mid-1980s they reproduced and may even have accentuated the crowns. When they were redone again in the mid-1990s the crowns were taken for granted.
-
I should add that I have played numerous Ross courses where grass faced bunkers have been "restored" and I swear even if Ross designed them that way, if he ever saw the finished product, he would have changed them and flashed some sand. This is not meant to be a knock against the restoring architect. It is meant to suggest that maybe Ross didn't actually see his original finished design (the bunkers) because if he did, he surely would have changed some of what he mailed in (IMHO).
Mark
-
There is no question in my mind the bunkers at Seminole would look much better flashed up. If you look at the old aerial, they were flashed up. Brad klein's comment is dead on the money, committee's provide direction and the architect is forced to find comprimise. The great jobs are where you don't have to.
John Stiles, excellent point. The issue for a renovation architect is where to go without excellent historical evidence. You are left to draw on the architects best examples. We are guilty of wanting to use the most popular or most typical examples of an architects work, whereas that particulr piece may have represented a departure in thought (whether permanent or temporary).
Tom, No. People like seeing sand too much, I can see a time where a great resortation like Aronimink has pressure from with-in "to see a little more sand"
-
Brad K.
"years of top-dressing after his death and the effect of years of sand accumulating on them from surrounding bunkers and bunker shots led to the greens acquiring a two foot crown"
Not sure I understand the top-dressing process completely but isn't the complete green getting top dressed all the way up to the border? So why would this accumulation develop within the green?
Also
If a significant buildup was caused by bunker shot splash would't the crown be larger nearer the bunkers with much less of a crown in other areas of the green?
I suppose this top-dressing over the years at #2 has made the greens more interesting but are their examples of a set of classic greens ruined in this mannner? How carefully does this practice have to be done as it has always seemed pretty haphazard at courses I am familiar with. Thank you
-
Corey, it's my understanding that three things happened at Pinehurst to lead to greens whose surfaces are about two feet higher than Ross built:
-sand used for very aggressive top-dressing built up the height of the green and naturally caused more to aggregate in the center, thus the dome (sand around the edge tends to fall, wash or blow off)
-sand from bunkers accumulated, causing more diverse patterns (clearly visible today on many holes)
-during mid-1980's "restoration," the attempt to recreate the already altered surfaces led to a construction process where the edges collapsed marginally, further exacerbating the "angle cake" pop-up quality of the greens
Today, only 30 percent of the average 6,000 square foot putting surfaces are under three percent slope, meaning that at modern mowing heights there are precious few hole placements available and very little room for the ball to come to rest. That's why golf there is so tough - the ball doesn;'t stop rolling. But that's a function of excessive slope and excessive green speed beyond anything Ross had anticipated
-
What the hell--my understanding of how Pinehurst's #2 greens are now so crowned doesn't have to do with topdressing at all. What the effect of constant topdressing at Pinehurst #2 did is raise the entire green surfaces over time. As Corey Miller surmised it's really completely illogical to think that topdressing an entire green will create a crown on that green. Just effects of sheet drainage on greens logically has to take the topdressing sand to lower areas and not keep it on higher areas. Plus the effects of sand splash out of bunkers is always going to be on the sides of greens that should logically bring up the sides in relation to the middle (midsections of greens). Anyone can see that effect on greens such as Merion's #8 or #13.
The real story on how #2's greens came to be as crowned as they now are had everything to do with a man known as Ed Connors who worked with the Nicklaus Co when all the greens of #2 were rebuilt to USGA spec greens in 1987. Connors had perfected a process to recreate green contours during rebuilding with a piece of equipment called a laser theodolite. So he shot all the details and grades of #2's green contours and then they reconstructed the greens to USGA specs. Only trouble is Connor sort of forgot about the dimensions of the USGA spec greens with the choker layer etc, etc, and when the greens were rebuilt with all the USGA spec layering they came out sort of like 4-6 inches higher than the previous greens. Oh SHIT--sort of major miscalculation!!
So what to do about this? Apparently Nicklaus or someone in the organization just said take a dozer and grade down the sides of the greens to tie them back in with what was around them! And that's how #2's green came to be as crowned as they are today.
-
Tom, that is facinating.
That's not the first time or the last that recreated greens "grew"
When Banff's greens were rebuilt the same way they faced an interesting dilema. The greens were concidered contaminated due to the use of mercury (forgot the damn name of the product) in the early years. When the greens were re-built, they simply added the profile over the top, not to disturb the existing soil, and shazam the greens grew higher overnight. This makes the tie-ins really tough, as noted by Tom above.
-
Ian--it is fascinating isn't it?
But it's also very ironic since so many people have come to respect and admire the so-called "crowned" greens of Pinehurst #2 anyway. So much so they seem now to assume that kind of green is the typical Ross green. Nothing of the kind. Jack Nicklaus didn't seem to realize that Aronimink was anything like a Ross course. I wonder what he thinks of the crowned greens of #2 today? Maybe he too thinks they're the prototypical Ross style green. A lot of people have said over the years that Nicklaus has sort of a short memory. It's sounding more like that may be true--don't you think? Fifteen years is an awful long time, I guess!
PS:
The semi flashed up sand of the original Ross bunkers at Seminole is a bit of a misunderstanding too. It was that way originally but for one reason or another the club just didn't understand that. One of the things I've learned is that misdating things, such as photographs, can sometimes lead to assumptions that go in different directions and sometimes in the opposite direction. Doing proper research and particularly dating things correctly can create timelines that often can tell you so much more than most have ever realized.
-
Interesting stories.
No. 2's greens are elevated at least four or five feet or more above fairway level--how would 4 or 5 inches make them crowned if they weren't significantly crowned to begin with. It seems to me they've always been crowned.
-
Tom:
A green raised above the fairway level isn't exactly the same thing as changing the height of particularly the sides of the greens and what they tie directly into such as the tops of bunkering or even the immediate approach. When you talk about #2's greens being 4-5 feet above the fairway that has to be quite a bit farther out than what the edges of the green ties into and an architect doesn't want to miss that tie in by 4-6 inches if he can help it. It's probably a bit like an elevator floor not landing flush with the floor of the building.
-
TEPaul,
When I played Pinehurst # 2 in 1961-2-3, the greens were crowned. At the time I described them to third parties as open umbrellas. I still remember a 2-iron that I hit 8 feet into the back right pin location on the 2nd hole in a misting fog, and a woman, walking in the woods, in a rain slicker said it was the best shot she had seen since Jug Macspaden hit one back in 38 or whatever year she referenced. That green was very umbrella like.
The greens were not flat in the early sixties, but 40 years of topdressing, sandsplash, regrassing and rebuilding can change the topos.
I would think that Peter Tufts could provide pretty accurate information with respect to just about everything at Pinehurst.
My dad, who had been playing at Pinehurst before grass indicated that the greens had an umbrella shape to them when he played there
-
"The greens were not flat in the early sixties, but 40 years of topdressing, sandsplash, regrassing......can change the topos."
Sure that can change the topos but explain to me then how a course such as Pinehurst #2 can become more crowned in the middle from years of topdressing and particularly sandsplash out of bunkering which anyone knows is going to land on the edges of greens and raise that peripheral area more than the middle. Take holes like Merion's #8 and #13. They certainly topdress those greens so why is it that those greens have become so much more bowled near those bunkers than they used to be?
But when you said rebuilding can have a real effect you're potentially saying just what I did about Connors and the USGA spec redesign to #2's greens in 1987. One can even read about that in Cornish & Whitten. So then the only question becomes did Connors and the Nicklaus organization miss on the USGA layered spec dimensions and try to fix the problem the way I said. A well known architect says that's the undeniable story on the crowned greens of Pinehurst #2 today.
Of course it really wouldn't be all that hard to prove what happened. All one has to do is compare photographs of any #2's greens before Ross died or around that time to the way they are now or any other time after his death. Looking at some photos of those greens at #2 (with Ross in the photos) it sure doesn't look to me like they're unusually crowned. And what I just heard happened long after the Tufts owned Pinehurst anyway.
-
TEPaul,
GRAVITY, together with irrigation and rain would seem to be at odds with build-up or the creation of a crowned effect toward the center of any green.
Sand splash would never reach the centers of the greens in substantive amounts, and would probably create more build-up at the perimeters rather than at the centers.
It would seem that construction alone would be the likely reason.
-
I played the course origionally in 19080 and walked the course 5 years ago. The only major difference to me was how far the ball was running when I hit putts. It was not out of my realm of "normal" speed when I played there origionally. When I hit putts, they seemed to run so much farther and were finding long slopes away that I initially did not think were an issue. It all came down to the damn ball did not want to stop. This made the surfaces seem more severe by result than by eye.
Glad I played in 80', it does make me wonder if I would hold it up as near perfection in design if I played it today?