[Scott Witter]

At Pinehurst #2 it has been written that the greens have evolved into the present 'Turtle Back/convex' contours through years and years of topdressing.

Can someone please tell me why I haven't seen this exaggerated physical change on any other greens that have also undergone similar topdressing programs?  Because I was fortunate to spend many years in greenskeeping before I became an architect, I look for certain physical changes in a golf course and how it has affected design and playability, but in all my years and travels, I have never seen or heard of anything this radical.  What am I missing?

[paul cowley]

Scott...If I am not mistaken the exaggerated greens are not a result of years of top dressing but an elevation mistake when trying to tie in the greens previously recorded contours during a conversion to a USGA type green....as I understand they transferred the contours back atop the old elevations, which raised the greens 12" or so, and then tied in these new elevations without a compensating rise in the green surrounds ....hence the somewhat radical slopes in places.
....my info needs further confirmation as I sometimes dream things and believe them to be true, but I think the foregoing is correct.

[Scott Witter]

Paul:

I can see this being entirely possible and plauseable, (though I also find this hard to believe with the thought in mind that whomever was doing this work would have been much more careful to monitor and maintain the same characteristics that were there originally!) but as you say, I too will wait to see if any others have comments about their history and this profound change.

Thanks.

[Gary_Mahanay]

Scott,

I believe that it was Pete Dye that made the comment on the topdressing and changing the character of the greens.  He said that he lived close to Pinehurst in the late 1940s and that he knew Donald Ross and played the #2 course all the time and that they are very different now because of all the topdressing.

That course should have been one of the more photographed places back in the old days.  Don't know how they could have gotten 12 to 16 inches higher in greens elevation changing to a USGA spec type green.

Gary

[Gary_Mahanay]

Scott,

The old Met-o-matic topdressers that they may have used could sure put out a very large amount of sand if not adjusted correctly.  Don't know if they were into light topdressing back in those days.  But, I'm like you.  Why don't you hear or see this on a lot of our older courses?

Gary  

[paul cowley]

Gary...I described how the deviation could have happened... through error......I am waiting for confirmation as to whether my memory serves me correctly.
Be patient, someone here is sure to soon answer the call as I have activated the YaBBGod signal.........

[Peter Pallotta]

Scott,
a good question, and I await the answer that Paul promised would come.

In the meantime, and just as an aside, I find it interesting to watch how, whether in golf course architecture or in medicine or politics, the consensus opinion/common wisdom/standard answer develops.

For years, Pinehurst #2's turtleback greens were "just the way Donald Ross designed them" - or so everybody said.  Then (as Gary points out) Pete Dye mentioned that he watched the topdressing change the character of those greens, and soon everybody was agreeing that THAT was the cause.  

Then one day an actual working architect asks, seemingly for the first time, the obvious question: well, if that's the case, why haven't I seen the same 'topdressing affect' on other greens... and suddenly the consensus opinion/common wisdom/standard answer gets challenged.

I wonder how many other times this has happened in the history of golf course architecture, and whether we may be overdue for a few more challenges to the common wisdom.

Peter

[peter_p]

I think I remember something about adding an inch of topdressing a year for decades.

[Jeff_Brauer]

yeah, Pete always said they were on an extremely heavy topdressing program.  Why (given its sand anyway) I have no clue.  Have never heard Paul's contractor error story, but it could be possible as well.

[Kris Spence]

Ron Whittens article in the May 05 issue of GD explains alot about the evolution of the #2 greens.  Topdressing is not entirely to blame and some of it probably has to do with things like Paul describes.  The process of topdressing today and what it was like in the 40's and 50's are completely two different animals.  Many of the greens we see today that have significant accumulation + 8 or 9 inches, the build up does not extent to the outer edges of the original fill pad, most of the time it follows the smaller rounded form of the present green.  This creates an uneven tie in or transition from the green to surrounds.  

The greens at the Roaring Gap Club NC (1924 Ross) are exactly like this today and if you were to integrate the existing putting surface elevation and edges to the surrounds you would create many  down sloping edges you see at #2, when if fact the original greens turned up as the neared the edges of the fill pads, bunkers and side slopes.

Like Rons article states, someone carved the build up down to tie it into the surrounds and shoulders.  The subsequent rebuilds replicated this versus changing it which resulted into one of the worlds greatest sets of greens.

[Sean_Tully]

Yet another story...

The story that I have heard was that the greens were topdressed by pulling a truck into the middle of the green and dumping the sand there to be spread out over the green. With a lack of attention it is likely to build up over time in the middle of the green and change the contours to the crowned look they have today.

Do I have any takers?

[Doug Siebert]

Shouldn't it be possible to know for sure by taking a few well placed core samples here and there?  If scientists can tell what the weather was like 100,000 years ago from ice cores in Antarctica, surely someone can figure out if those greens were built that way or evolved?

This is sort of an evolution vs. intelligent design debate, isn't it?

[paul cowley]

....if I must rely on my memory once again, the current greens contours resulted from work in the last 20 to 25 years, when there was a re-build of the greens ...some kind of a conversion from the original pushups.. and in preparation of this the greens contours were surveyed and recorded so that they might be more accurately recreated and it was when these measurements were transferred during the rebuild that the exaggerated errors occurred.
....my memory suggests caution though, as when the alarm went off this AM, I was a member of a group of Rev War militia that was just being chased out of a meeting we were having in a low ceilinged farmhouse by a squad of Redcoats.

Please Gods, don't leave me dangling out here .

[Peter Pallotta]

Paul,
if you can 'remember' the Rev War and your part in it in such dramatic detail, you shouldn't have any worries about your memory, and this little business about the Pinehurst greens should be a snap for you    On the other hand, your YaBBGod signal activation device seems to be working only sporadically...

Peter

[wsmorrison]

Paul,

Your memory serves you well, this time    Tom Paul related a story about the process used to rework the greens by an associate of Nicklaus.  The story was as you say, and I don't remember it all that well, that the conversion of greens from pushup to USGA spec (?) resulted in the green surfaces being 6" to 1' higher than they were and the surrounds were just tied in artifically resulting in the steep slopes.  When I was down there the last time some Old Guard resident told me that the greens at Pine Needles were much more like the old Pinehurst #2 greens.  Pine Needles was a joy to play and I thought the greens outstanding.  Anyway, with the Tufts and all the historical events on #2, a study of ground photos should make the determination nearly absolute.  Has anyone bothered to do so?

[Peter Pallotta]

Wayne, Paul

This may be a dumb question, but if the greens developed as you suggest, what was the 'rationale' behind tying in the surrounds so artificially? What I mean is, did those supervising the work have a 'theory' behind tying in surfaces that were now a foot higher than they were before? Were they after a certain look, intentionally (because perhaps the look was then popular, or because they thought it was what Ross would've wanted)? Or was it just sloppy work, which seems hard to believe....
Thanks
Peter

[wsmorrison]

Good questions, Peter.  I don't know anything first or second-hand so I hope I am not contributing to any myth here.  I think it was in the 1980s and the sensibilities weren't so high and probably, knowing resorts, money was tight and neither the contractor or the club wanted to foot the bill.  Likely an economic rather than intentional response to the "What do we do now that we screwed up?" question.  Again, much of this is speculation so it probably isn't worth the bandwidth I've taken up.

[Scott Witter]

Thanks everyone for the contributions on this interesting subject.

It would seem that there is still some slight haze over the exact reason, or circumstance as to how this actully happened...though a little bird landed on my shoulder late last night and informed me that it was in fact years and years of 'extreme' topdressing.  I am not not completely sure what to take as gospel at the moment and no explanation will likely lead me this way anyway for too much history has taken place.  Nevertheless, there seems to be some solid evidence stemming from the reconstruction of the surfaces from old to more modern profiles as well as the long standing position of unusual topdressing practices.

I'll buy that as good enough for government work, until such time any other definitive evidence surfaces in the coming days, but I still find it most unusual to see this having happened at such a remarkable and historical venue, don't you agree!

Paul: thanks for calling upon your 'higher powers', it will be interesting to hear if they turn up any other thoughts.

Jeff: that was my first odd thought as well.  If the profiles were sand anyway, why would they topdress so much, and if they were converted not all that long ago, historically speaking, how could so much be added?

Wayne: I have the answer to solve all of this.  How about we sneak into the grounds some warm evening this spring while the ground is still soft and take our shovels and simply dig around in a couple of those babies and uncover the "REAL" truth.  We'll be hero's man... mythbusters!!...just think of it...allright, who's with us on this!  Set your watches to 5 tango, zulu, zulu, bravo, 7, we leave at dawn men!   OUT!

[wsmorrison]

"Wayne: I have the answer to solve all of this.  How about we sneak into the grounds some warm evening this spring while the ground is still soft and take our shovels and simply dig around in a couple of those babies and uncover the "REAL" truth.  We'll be hero's man... mythbusters!!...just think of it...allright, who's with us on this!  Set your watches to 5 tango, zulu, zulu, bravo, 7, we leave at dawn men!  OUT!"

Scott,

I need to get a new black watchcap and some black face paint.  But I'll be there with shovel, night vision goggles and a cyanide pill if caught  

[Jeff Goldman]

Folks,

The question of the origin of #2's present greens has been discussed a number of times.  The most recent discussion was around the time the Whitten article came out, and was very good, with, I believe, both Brad Klein and Tom Doak, among others, chiming in.

There was an even earlier discussion where the story of how the greens were supposedly the result of a mistake by the Nicklaus guys was brought up.  Jim Lipe, of the Nicklaus organization, came on to dispute the story and explain exactly what he did and how he did it when the greens were rebuilt.  At some point I'll try to find both, or, with any luck, someone else will and put them up top or give a link.

Jeff Goldman

[jim_lewis]

I am always amused by the interest and the various theories about how the Pinehust #2 green complexes arrived at their current configuration. To me, the more important question is how do you like them the way they are now, regardless of how they got there or what Ross intended. I happen to think that they are the best set of greens I have seen. Some will complain that they are too severe, and in the next breath lament that most championship courses have to be lenghtened to protect par. It is true that #2 has been lengthened somewhat, but the greens are the main reason that 1 under par has won the past two Opens. I believe that Mr. Ross thought that the true test of a good golfer is hs iron play. The greens at #2 certainly demand excellent iron shots. If your don't hit great irons, you had better understand where you can get away with missing the greens. If you can't do that either, go play another course.

For those who want to know more about the history of the greens, I suggest that you re-read the May 2005 feature interview of Richard Mandel. Rich is a local architest and historian, who has probably researched the subject more thoroughly than anyone, certainly more than Pete Dye.

[paul cowley]

....although the ball is still hazy, I think I am beginning to see four horsemen riding this way at a fast pace....one seems of medium build, almost like a Jimmy Olsen...another is taller but thin, with dark glasses....the other two, riding close, seem a bit distracted because they were fishing off Los Cabos when summoned.................but now its dark again and will have to wait......... but when you think of #2's greens its the tie ins and dropped edges that define the challenge, not the internal movement, which makes the exaggerated elevation theory all the more plausible.
What is even more interesting is that I also remember seeing a well drawn survey record of one of the greens done in 6" topos.....again, this was for what I assumed was needed for the construction phase of the 'theory'..... [hopefully, or I will have to relate this one to Dreamtime as well ].

....but even if it all turns out that it was a mistake, I would say it was a fortuitous one at that.

[jim_lewis]

Paul:

I agree completely with your observation that it is the sloped edges and the surrounds much more than internal movement which present the challenge (and aggravation). I recall a comment that Johnny Miller made during the telecast of the 1999 Open. He was asked to compare the greens on #2 with the Augusta National greens. To paraphrase, he said that they presented almost opposite cahllenges. At Augusts, the greens are not so hard to hit, but very difficult to putt. At #2, the greens are very difficult to hit, but once you get on them, they are not as difficult to putt ( especially with a good caddie to read them!).

[Scott Witter]

Jeff G:

I suspected as much regarding previous threads on this subject and wondered when someone would speak up and redirect us...thanks.  I look forward to seeing those threads posted, or simply send me an IM with them if you find them.

Jim L:  I remember that interview with Richard and I'll do just that, thanks.

Paul & Wayne: thanks for keeping it light along the way!

On the greens themselves, I am in full agreement with respect to their state currently and the remarkable character they have...but I had an itch about their history and you guys scratched it, thanks again, BTW could you move over two inches and up a spot, right there, yep thats it...thanks.

[Brad Tufts]

Tying in with this discussion, the greens as they are today obviously present a stiff challenge.  Until you reach them, the course is relatively benign.  I've never played a course tough enough where you are hitting and hoping even with a wedge in your hands.

My question is this:  With the lack of difficult or infamous hazards, was the course with its previous lower-profile greens less interesting?  I mean Pinehurst and the Sandhills area is beautiful and peaceful amongst the stately pines, but without the push-up greens, I can see only a few holes that specifically stand out.  So in their previous incarnation, were the greens good enough to make #2 as world class as it is today (a designation almost totally based on the greens)?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()