News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Ran Morrissett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Should Pinehurst No. 2 greens be lowered?
« on: April 06, 2002, 09:53:13 AM »
In part because Pinehurst has always been a resort and thus promoted itself, there exists lots and lots of 50 year old plus photographs of the Pinehurst Resort courses. As No. 2 evolved into the centerpiece, there are naturally plenty of ones specifically of it (and a lot of those center on its greens).

Suppose in looking at such photographs that you became convinced that the putting surfaces were now up to two feet higher off the ground than when Ross passed away. Regardless of the reason why they rose (topdressing, etc.) over the past fifty years, would you ever be in favor of having the greens returned to the height they were circa 1950?

If so, why?

If not, why?

Cheers,
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

APBernstein

Re: Should Pinehurst No. 2 greens be lowered?
« Reply #1 on: April 06, 2002, 10:12:12 AM »
Absolutely not.

In older courses, sometimes evolution is actually helpful.  Just because, at one time, Ross had the greens at a certain height does not mean that he was right and today's greens are "wrong".

The greens today punish a misplayed shot appropriately.  And a misplayed shot at #2 holds a much different meaning than most anywhere else in the world.  A shot that hits anywere on the left side of the green on hole #5 is misplayed.  Anything towards the back or hard left of hole #8 is misplayed.  The steep banks help enforce this strategy pefectly.  I believe if the greens were lowered two feet across the board and you would start to lose some of that quality.

In another 50 years if the greens are another two feet higher than today, then we can talk.  However, with current practices, I don't see that being the case.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Should Pinehurst No. 2 greens be lowered?
« Reply #2 on: April 06, 2002, 10:39:01 AM »
Interesting question indeed and an interesting response from Andrew.

First of all the quesiton of "evolution" vs " pure restoration" (which would be removing the "evolution") is a little known subject among even people (green committees) who might otherwise know quite enough for a good restoration.

A question like this though requires a good deal more thought in my opinion. And it really gets more into the question of "playability" than just "evolution" vs "pure restoration".

Andrew knows that course, I sure don't. If he thinks that the greens of Pinehurst #2 have some really great "playability" (intensity) now with 2' of additional elevation in the centers of the greens, and particularly given the severely increased green speed from Ross original green center elevations then I'll take his word for it.

But if they were to decide that they wanted to maintain those high green speeds (and I'm sure they do) but that the greens had gotten to a "playability" that had gone over the top, then at least they have a "softening" process and barometer to do something intelligent about it which would be to go back to Ross's original green center elevations to get just the right "playability" they do want.

This is basically an example of "evolution" vs "restoration" which can all be dictated by analyzing the "ideal maintenance meld". The other option is to slow the green speeds down.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should Pinehurst No. 2 greens be lowered?
« Reply #3 on: April 06, 2002, 10:47:49 AM »
I haven't had the pleasure of playing the course yet, but was there during the 99 Open. Watching the pros trying to figure out how to get up and down during the practice rounds was very interesting. Nobody could go in there and just play their patented short game shots like any other course. I saw players use as many as 5 or 6 clubs from one spot trying to determine the best way to play the shot.
For the average player the short game requirements may be a bit much, but I think most people going in to #2 have heard of the perils of the greens and surrounds. I would rather try getting up and down and test my short game than plunk a ball in the water like so many modern courses utilize.
I would keep the greens where they are now.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

TEPaul

Re: Should Pinehurst No. 2 greens be lowered?
« Reply #4 on: April 06, 2002, 10:54:02 AM »
While the facts and features are different this question is really not that much different than one Merion just faced. But Merion's revolved around primarily the evolution of some bunkers, best examples being the green fronting bunkers on both #8 and #13!

Those bunker faces and top profiles had risen maybe 3-4 feet over the decades due to sand splash (a golfer induced form of topdressing actually) and obviously had taken the green fronts just over the bunker profiles right up 3-4 feet with them.

Given Merion's severely increased green speeds (like Pinehurst #2) from when those fronting bunker profiles and the green fronts were 3-4 feet lower, Merion was faced with a decision of what they wanted the approach shots to play like which depending on what they chose to do would be about 180 degrees different in "playability".

If they took out the 3-4 foot "evolution" balls just over the fronting bunkers would probably suck back or trickle back into the fronting bunker. If they stuck with the 3-4 foot rise of the fronting bunkers and green fronts, the same shot just over those bunkers tends to shoot hard across the green when it hits the green front "decline" just over the bunker.

A playability of just about 180 degrees difference! Merion stuck with the "evolution" in their bunker restoration project and I, for one, think they made the right choice.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Should Pinehurst No. 2 greens be lowered?
« Reply #5 on: April 06, 2002, 11:33:52 AM »
Ran,

I think it would come down to cost and justification.

Why would you do it, other than to replicate what was.
and... what would it cost, and can the relationship of the two be justified.

If the internal contours, grass and speeds were to be identical, unless you're a purist, with deep pockets, I can't see it happening.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Richard_Goodale

Re: Should Pinehurst No. 2 greens be lowered?
« Reply #6 on: April 06, 2002, 11:41:52 AM »
Tom

As I think I said to you when we played there, I think that 8 and 13 at Merion would be more intersting and challenging holes if they had brought the bunkers down to their original contours.  For one thing it would add more options to the tee shot (now it's just fly it over the splashed up berm and try to stick it).  For another it would bring into play some very interesting front pin positions.

As for Pinehurst, this is an interesting question.  It would seem to me that if the issue is years of top dressing, this "problem" must exist at multitudes of (if not almost all) courses.  I'd like to hear from some superintendents as to whether or not this is a common occurrence, and if so, what they generally do about it.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Ran Morrissett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should Pinehurst No. 2 greens be lowered?
« Reply #7 on: April 06, 2002, 11:53:11 AM »
Andrew, Do you think that Ross would be pleased - after spending a lifetime building holes that are fun to play for every skill level - that the course he is most closely associated with possesses such holes as 5 and 6, which routinely humiliate those who play them?

Tom, Hasn't the steep sandy face of the front bunker at 13 at Merion also evolved into a genuine maintenance headache? I am sure this year will be no different, though Merion has the resources to dedicate to preserving it "as is" should they so choose.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Should Pinehurst No. 2 greens be lowered?
« Reply #8 on: April 06, 2002, 01:29:07 PM »
Rich:

Interesting you say that about how you would recommend that Merion handle its "evolution" vs "pure restoration" decision or dilemma on their bunkers.

All I can say is that you make a perfectly good case for your choice and others have made a perfectly good case for their choice of sticking with the "playability" of leaving the evolutionary build up alone.

Now of course this is an excellent example of a committee that is faced with a decision of which way to go. Let's just say that the membership is equally split on the issue which in the actual case of Merion's membership I'm sure it was not!

Then the committee should probably look a bit farther into the issue and maybe consider cost factors as Pat Mucci suggested and generally does suggest in these things. Clearly it would have been more expensive during the bunker restoration to remove that kind of "evolutionary" buildup.

But the club could have also looked into the "playability" issue a bit farther and my understanding is that they did do that. An independent report was offered that explained that by probing down through the "evolutionary" buildup they would come upon what he described as "Hugh Wilson's fingerprints" which in fact would be the top of the bunkers that Wilson and Flynn had designed and built! That would be where they would take the bunkers back to of course having to soften and grade out the fronts of the green to conform. Probably not an inexpensive undertaking.

Anyway there was a very simple caveat included in this independent report that concluded if this were to be done with the present greenspeeds that Merion now maintains compared to Wilson's time that it would be likely that some of the greens of Merion would then become "a freakshow"! And my recollection that's the exact term he used!

This just shows what some good and comprehensive research is all about. To try to understand all the ramifications of any particular decision you might make, particularly how it might relate to other things, in other words.

I would think the prospect of creating a "freakshow" on their greens with today's speeds probably got Merion's attention and they chose to stick with the "evolutionary" buildup and at least a "playability" they knew and understood and could control and live with on both approach shots and putting!

This is exactly what I think every club should do or be aware of in restoration or architectural decision making--it's comprehensive, informed and it is better able to avoid mistakes and additional costs.

Having said all that--the choice you would have made is still a very good one strategically, but maybe no better than the one 180 degrees different, or at least not enough better to risk getting into all the "ifs" I just outlined.

And it also shows that a club is always faced with a number of differing opinons, but eventually they have to pull the trigger and make a decision and it never makes everyone happy.

So with all that research the correct architectural decision will probably show itself eventually and then the next and probably harder process begins of explaining to various people exactly why it's better to do something that they may not want you to do.

Green committees get critcized often and forcefully and very rarely do they ever get credit or praised. It's definitely not an easy job to do, even for the most knowledgeable, effecient and persuasive. Only if they could make five hundred different decisions on the same issue but unfortunately they can always only make one and hope it was the best one and the right one.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tyler Kearns

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should Pinehurst No. 2 greens be lowered?
« Reply #9 on: April 06, 2002, 02:09:32 PM »
Ran,
       Difficult question indeed. I was interested in what TEPaul said about the 2'0" elevation rise at the centers of the greens. I had assumed that the entire green had been elevated 2'0", and that in order to smooth the edges, the 2'0" of topdressing were spread evenly amongst the green surrounds, connecting the green and fairway in harmony. If only the centers are 2'0" higher, then the slopes have gotten much steeper, thus much further from the original D.Ross design? In that case, if restoration can guarantee a perfect fit to Ross' plans, then I'm for it. Contrarily, common opinion states that the course is a fair test and properly rewards good strokes and punishes the poor ones. The old adage of "if it ain't brkoe, don't fix it" seems apt here.
           The talk about bunker faces at Merion rising 3'0" - 4'0" in elevation got me to thinking, albeit somewhat tongue-in-cheek. This seems like a more justified state of evolution. The faces are rising because golfers are hitting from them, thus the additional elevation of the face, and added difficulty associated with recovery are comensurate with the effectiveness of the bunker's ability to guard the green. Bunkers that were made deep by the architect, to catch people biting off more than they can chew, or simply hitting poor shots, are slowly becoming harder and harder because of increased use, re-enforcing the architect's original intent.  :-/
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

redanman

Re: Should Pinehurst No. 2 greens be lowered?
« Reply #10 on: April 06, 2002, 02:34:48 PM »
I would recommend that the greens be slowed as the Penn G-2 puts #2 too close to "over the top".......... As for the height, I wouldn't touch them.  If there is a problem with #2 it is ridiculous speed/contour ratios, which is directly attributable to the grass change.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ian

Re: Should Pinehurst No. 2 greens be lowered?
« Reply #11 on: April 06, 2002, 08:05:33 PM »
Kinda reminds me of the debate on the sistine chapel. They had so much smoke damage that the original colours were subdued and the shadows emphasised(theoretically). The ended up cleaning the frescoes and restoring the frescoes to their original colours. The main problem was there are many who are still very upset and question whether they actually removed the sealent that darkened the colours and was the source of the shadowing. This would mean that the end result was not the original.

When nobody is certain, and these greens are so highly regarded, leave them the way they are. Even if the have evolved, they are still some of the best green sites I have ever played.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should Pinehurst No. 2 greens be lowered?
« Reply #12 on: April 07, 2002, 07:37:55 AM »
Ran:

Absolutely not!

Last week was my third trip to Pinehurst #2, and I have now
played it five times.

What amazed me even more than the other times I visited
were the greens.  We played the blue tees, and, for instance, on the fifth, I hit a pretty big drive and chose a 6-iron for my approach shot, which hit maybe 20 feet left of the pin (center).  It had a bit of draw to it, and it had 0 chance to stay on the green!  I made a double.

At #8, I killed a drive and hit a 9-iron pin high right which somehow did manage to stay on, even though it curled a bit and threatened to fall off.  Two-putts for a birdie.

At numbers one, two and three, I also hit good drives, but because of pin positions, I was deathly afraid of hitting my
approach shots.  All three I managed to get up-and-down
to make pars.

Driving the ball with my 360 Taylor Made Driver and hitting my
Pro V1's, I drove the ball amazingly long.  However, Pinehurst
still has a defense for that - it's called those incredible greens!!

Despite hitting professional-like tee shots, Pinehurst's greens ground me into submission and I only managed to put up a
grand old 91!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

TEPaul

Re: Should Pinehurst No. 2 greens be lowered?
« Reply #13 on: April 07, 2002, 08:00:32 AM »
Ian:

From the sound of what you said about the Sistine chapel it appears that Fazio/MacDonald & Co got that restoration contract too. Jesus, Mother Mary & Michaelangelo too, if the Pope can't stop those guys from impurely restoring classics who's gonna be able to?

The question was asked why the centers of Pinehurst #2's greens have risen over the years by constant topdressing and not the peripheries of the greens too. I think someone once told me this is a natural effect of contour drainage on greens that creates this but that sounds illogical to me. It would seem to work the other way where as the water ran off the surfaces it might carry the topdressing with it basically elevating the green peripheries or collection areas more than the centers over time and actually minimizing the original Ross contours instead of excentuating them.

But maybe not. Some of the supers would be able to answer that better. But still the question remains, how then did the centers rise over the edges by two feet with evolution, and everyone says that's just what happened--the photos are quite clear on that?

Someone else asked if constant topdressing "evolution" took place on other courses like it did at Pinehurst. Yes, it's an evolutionary effect that can change the contours on courses like Seminole that are seasonal clubs and undergo tons of summer maintenance year after year when the courses are shut down all summer. ANGC another seasonally open example of constant "shut-down" maintenance work! The former an  example of courses whose greens have been constantly topdressed, gassed, regrassed, over and over.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeff Fortson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should Pinehurst No. 2 greens be lowered?
« Reply #14 on: April 07, 2002, 12:21:05 PM »
Lowering the greens would ruin the course.  It is that simple.  There need not be any huge debate.

Jeff F.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
#nowhitebelt

TEPaul

Re: Should Pinehurst No. 2 greens be lowered?
« Reply #15 on: April 07, 2002, 02:06:36 PM »
Jeff Forston;

That's a very interesting statement you just made. I'm not denying it, mind you, since I've never even been to Pinehurst. But what you are saying is if that topdressing evolutionary center green elevation increase had NOT occured then the greens would probably be the same contour and slope that Ross had spent much time to perfect them to be.

Even if that happened to be so the extreme increase in green speeds today should make them play a helluva lot more intense than in Ross's time. But they've risen about 2' in the center from Ross's time meaning the slopes and contours just HAVE to be more intense than in Ross's day. Add to that the new G-2 superspeed strain and you still say this shouldn't even be discussed?

All I can think to say is that this should be discussed or else Ross's original greens, particularly at their speeds back then must have been really mundane!! But that's not what people ever said back then.

So what the hell's going on here? It's sort of impossible to have it both ways. Clearly some of the pros in 1999 were getting a bit frustrated in the Open. So all I can think of is Pinehurst #2 greens must no more than around 8-9 for everyday play today.

As I said, I've never been there but something has to be amiss here somewhere!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should Pinehurst No. 2 greens be lowered?
« Reply #16 on: April 07, 2002, 07:05:17 PM »
Excerpt from an article about the greens rebuilding at P#2

GREENS RESTORATION
"The arduous process of green restoration, which took place in 1996 and 1997, began with an extensive survey of the existing greens. This resulted in a grid that allowed surveyors to apply between 600 to 700 points of reference per green. These references ensured the precise re-establishment of the greens to their initial shape and size. The work then started in earnest. Workers dug out by hand the new drainage lines and trenches needed for the future putting surfaces. The design team re-created the original green slopes at this lower height, thus ensuring consistent drainage and moisture content of the topsoil. Again, the greens were surveyed to make sure the original measurements had been duplicated. Any slight variances were altered by hand. With the original green design re-created with a soil base to ensure a healthy environment, the final step included the seeding of the putting surface with a new type of bentgrass referred to as Penn G-2. An advantage of this hybrid is that it establishes a deep, strong root system, producing a grass that can be cut to the low height required by a U.S. Open and withstand the summer heat and humidity of North Carolina.

Other changes took place on the course at the same time, but were simple compared to the work done on the greens. For example, the fairways were converted to a type of Bermuda grass called the 419 Hybrid Bermuda, which is perfect for the Pinehurst weather conditions. As with the Penn G-2, this grass can be cut low even in high heat, which, again, helps assure perfect fairway conditions during the tournament. These grass concerns are important because this will be only the second U.S. Open played on Bermuda grass fairways. In addition, during 1997 and 1998, the course bunkers were returned to their original depth, with new sand replacing the old. Interestingly enough, very few other changes have been made to the course other than the usual preparations for public seating, corporate tents, and tournament management necessities"


And what the arch. said:
 "And, of course, he recently completed work on Pinehurst No. 2, which Jones describes as Donald Ross’ “ultimate test of golf.” That wasn’t quite how Jones found No. 2, however, when the doctor came calling.

The signature Ross-crowned greens had virtually shrunk from the effects of motorized mowers. But thanks to the extensive research by No. 2’s course superintendent Paul Jett, collaboration with the U.S. Golf Association, and the surgically precise massaging by Jones, the new bentgrass now slides over the slope of the greens so it releases the ball, creating what Ross had originally  intended — one of the greatest recovery, chipping, and putting challenges in the game.

“I wanted to restore it as close [to its original state] as possible,” Jones explains. “Architects are in a period of rebuilding and revering classics. We’re back to building shot options.” The result is a par-70 Pinehurst No. 2 representing “the way golf should be played,” Jones describes. “You have to think about every shot.”

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

TEPaul

Re: Should Pinehurst No. 2 greens be lowered?
« Reply #17 on: April 07, 2002, 08:56:52 PM »
So the 2' evolutionary elevation rise in the greens was taken out by Rees and restored to Ross's original green contours and sizes?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

redanman

Re: Should Pinehurst No. 2 greens be lowered?
« Reply #18 on: April 08, 2002, 01:17:28 AM »

Quote
So the 2' evolutionary elevation rise in the greens was taken out by Rees and restored to Ross's original green contours and sizes?

I missed that statement and personally from many years visiting the place I seriously doubt that 2' of height was removed from those greens.  Sizes yes, heights, no.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mike O'Neill

Re: Should Pinehurst No. 2 greens be lowered?
« Reply #19 on: April 08, 2002, 05:27:10 AM »
I thought this was all theoretical.  ??? Ran, can you explain where you came up with this question and give us your answer?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

jim_lewis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should Pinehurst No. 2 greens be lowered?
« Reply #20 on: April 08, 2002, 12:59:23 PM »
I  have been trying to ignore this thread, hoping that it would die the quick death it deserves. I can not resist any longer. The short answer to Ran’s original question is, NOT NO, BUT HELL NO!

The green complexes on #2 are some of the very best in the world. I still get goose bumps each day when I drive past the incredible second green. Pinehurst #2 may be the only course that can provide a stern test for the U.S. Open without the benefit of significant lengthening, high rough, narrow fairways,  beaucoup hazards, or stiff winds. The reason is simple. It’s the greens, stupid! They demand and reward well struck irons, preferably short irons, as they are effectively much smaller than they look. However,  they also reward the excellent approach with a reasonably makeable putt.

I don’t know what the greens looked like when Mr. Ross died, and frankly, I don’t care. I also don’t know what Mr. Ross would think of the greens today if he were alive, and I also don’t care. Mr Ross himself could not convince me that the greens were better in the 40's and that they should be changed today. While I am at it, let me add that I don’t care what Mackenzie would say about the changes at Augusta National. I simply reject the notion that we are to judge a course based on some speculation about what a dead architect would say if he were alive. I insist on judging the course as it is, not how it might have been. Frankly, I have more confidence in my own abilitity to judge whether changes are improvements than in anyone's ability to say what an architect, who has been dead for decades, might think if he were alive today.

It is true that some golfers are humiliated on #2, but my observation is that it is usually the fault of the player, not the course. Some of the reasons I have seen players humiliated and disgusted on #2 are:

Unrealistic expectations.  I am a short-hitting 12 handicapper, and I expect to make about a dozen bogies everytime I play. I am amazed by the number of long-hitting single-digit handicappers who expect to par every hole, and get annoyed when their 300 yard drive does not automatically result in a par or birdie. Length is an asset at #2 (like every other course), but it is primarily a test of iron play and a creative short game.

Too much emphasis on GIR.  The secret to success on #2 is not so much hitting the greens, but knowing where to miss to present a reasonable up-and-down opportunity.

Lack of composure. As much as anything, #2 tests your ability to maintain your composure and not lose you cool when a shot does not get the result you think it deserves. Like life, it is not fair, but success is often determined by your ability to deal with disappointment.

Inability or unwillingness to use a putter from 10 yards off the green. If you can’t or won’t, stay home.

Failure to listen to the caddy.

Playing the wrong tees. You must give yourself a chance to hit some lofted clubs to those greens.

On my 58th birthday I shot a 78 on #2. It can’t be that hard!

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »
"Crusty"  Jim
Freelance Curmudgeon

Richard_Goodale

Re: Should Pinehurst No. 2 greens be lowered?
« Reply #21 on: April 08, 2002, 01:40:11 PM »
Bravo, Jim :)

You make me want to get back there to give the old girl another roll in the hay!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Wayne Ashby

Re: Should Pinehurst No. 2 greens be lowered?
« Reply #22 on: April 08, 2002, 02:09:56 PM »
Jim
Shame on you. Your total disregard for the original work and memory of donald ross is disturbing to say the least. I would have expected more from a ross society member. May I ask why you remain a member, do you have an ulterior motivation? If you had done your homework you would have realized this question is based on a flawed presumption.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should Pinehurst No. 2 greens be lowered?
« Reply #23 on: April 08, 2002, 02:29:37 PM »
Jim:

I don't care what anyone else says - you're response was
great!

I love Donald Ross.  I love Pinehurst.  I love Pinehurst's
greens.

Don't touch them!!!

'nuf said?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

jim_lewis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should Pinehurst No. 2 greens be lowered?
« Reply #24 on: April 08, 2002, 03:21:31 PM »
Hi Wayne:

It is good to see you post on this site. I figured you were watching us.  You know I have the highest regard for Mr. Ross.  However, my appreciation for Pinehurst #2 would be no less if it had been designed by Joe Smidlap. I think it is one of the world's great courses just as it is, regardless of when and how it evolved to its current state and regardless who is is responsible.

BTW, I am no longer a member of the Donald Ross Society, but that's another story. Please send me your email address and I will explain privately.

Jim

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Crusty"  Jim
Freelance Curmudgeon

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back