[Mark Brown]

This is an issue I wrestle with all the time. There's room for both but which has the most positives versus the negatives. Ross is probably the best example for repelling shot around the green and Nicklaus is near the top when its comes to collecting wayward approach shots. Fazio has associates that do both, and I guess Dye mainly repels, causing you to lose balls. There is also a style of feeding the ball to the green that Smyers is very good at.

[Bill_McBride]

Why not an artistic mix?  There will be 18 holes out there!  A mixture of Pinehurst type greens and MacKenzie greens would not be a bad thing.........

[Tommy_Naccarato]

This is precisely the type of question that allows one to see how knowledgable another is concerning golf architecture.

[Kyle Harris]

Well, it depends... I think most good architects have a little of both.

For example, Ross greens are generally assumed to "repel" most golf shots away from the hole... however, almost all Ross Greens have a back door and a way close to the hole location, just takes an experienced golfer who can execute the shot to do it. Ross placed a premium on long iron play and the like, therefore his green complexes tend to reward precise play from the fairway.

Whether or not there is a style centered around Collecting or Repelling a shot though, I'm not sure. Some of our most copied and cherished holes do both. For example, a true Redan collects balls stuck short and right of the green (or just on) and feeds them to the hole locations over the diagonal hazard. However, a ball struck directly at the hole will be repelled over the back. It's a matter of where you strike the ball and how the architect is tempting or fooling you.

[Mike McGuire]

okay -  il be the first to expose myself as an 18 when it comes to knowledge of golf course architecture. (and spelling)

I love a hole where you can land your ball on purpose off the green and have it end up near the hole. This of course is only for a certain pin placement. How many guests would figure it out ? You see that pin on 18 next to a pot bunker before you tee off ...ahhhh...all you have to do is be AS thru 17.

[TEPaul]

This is a great question. Obviously collecting or repelling balls anywhere on a course should not exactly be some question of formula, in my opinion. And obviously variety and subtlety has a whole lot to do with it. Variety, subtlety and particularly randomness in the sense of collecting or repelling a golf ball eventually gets into what one should assume to be a natural look---eg tying in the man-made lines with natural lines and formations so one has a hard time telling which is which. The best result of it done well for the effect it has on a golf ball once it gets on the ground should induce any player to have to study carefully all that's in front of him to try to determine what it means in this sense of repelling or collecting----eg how it might effect the golf ball when it gets to ground. Think of what they say in this way about TOC---most of which really is nature's own anyway. Is there any more to it really than randomness?

Once you've come to understand this in architecture probably the next thing to look for in the context of repelling or collecting of a golf ball is what one might refer to as "the margins for error". With architects like Dye, Muirhead, probably Raynor and MacDonald the "margins for error" are or are often noticeably thin--sometimes razor thin. With architects like Ross, Mackenzie, Flynn, Colt, Alison, C&C, Doak and some others today they are much less so.

While all of those above play great, in my opinion, in a collecting or repelling sense they do play different and they do look different. I like both because I like a broad spectrum difference and variety in golf architecture but there's no question in my mind that I like the latter style better because I think it just looks more like the real thing---the real thing generally being the look of nature's lines--and how they might repel or collect a golf ball once it comes to ground.

And in the context of this overall question I'll even give you an example of this collecting or repelling of a golf ball---perhaps the most amazingly odd and dramatic example of it I've ever seen. It was on the 13th hole at Royal County Down. On the tee I hit a good one iron although the hole was pretty long on the card. I hit that 1 iron because I just couldn't figure out what the tee shot was about and it looked like it necked in pretty good on the left that was formed by a beautiful diagonal natural dune ridge. So I got up there and had about 200 yards left to a back left pin. If I walked to the end of the ridge I could see the pin. I think there was a marker on the hill too around the center of the green. So my caddie told me to hit a 6 iron. Well, I hit a 6 iron around 170 at most which I reminded him off. He told me just to hit the 6 iron and hit it well to the right of the marker in the middle of the green. I told him the marker looked like it was about 10-15 yards right of the pin--and he said it was but just hit the ball well to the right of the marker (none of this I could see by the way). So I hit this 6 iron and I thought it was a helluva lot more than 'well to the right of the marker' and he said that it might be perfect! When I got around the ridge my ball was about two feet from the pin and I saw the enormous stretch of fairway cut approach well to the right of the hole that gradually inclined up into the dunes. My ball probably slung right to left about 50 yards.

Coolest damn thing I've ever experienced and I didn't even actually see it happen. That's why to me that hole (RCD's #13) is one of the neatest holes in the world. My ball collected from maybe 30 yards short and 50 yards right of the pin and cozied right next to it. And I realized if I hit that ball at that pin or even at that marker quite a bit to the right of it the ball very likely would've repelled off the green to the left.

To me that's an example of really great architecture in a collecting or repelling sense. It was the farthest thing from obvious---almost impossible to imagine really until it actually happened. I'm not saying all holes should be like that---but that one is a winner in a lot of ways including in a collecting and repelling sense!

[Joe Hancock]

If you see bunkers that are 100% rejecters, there may be soil/ climate reasons that dictated that decision. Having said that, sometimes during construction, you get used to thinking "safe", and you can miss an opportunity for a cool collection bunker. The key is to be open to possibilities, and also to make sure you don't get....dare I say it...formulaic.

Joe

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Often times if there is a favorable slope that feeds you to the pin, or the proper part of the fairway, then it peaks at the ridge line, and descends along the opposite slope that feeds you away from the favorable part of the fairway or the pin. Rotate it 180 degrees, and it may check your shot either to allow a proper release to the pin, or to carry you back away from the pin, or it propels you farther down the fairway.  Is all magic!

[George Pazin]

I think I remember Tommy once saying that great courses are convex, while other lesser courses are concave. Pretty interesting imagery, and pretty insightful, in my limited experience.

[Mike Hendren]

Must they be mutually exclusive?

Doesn't a redan do both?

Doesn't an Alps  do both?

Doesn't a Biarritz do both?

Mike

[Kyle Harris]

Mike, that was my point:

One of the major fascinations with golf in general is decipher which parts of the hole collect the shots and which will repel them. KBM alluded to this in his playfully vague posting about how an architect can nudge features around to do both.

There's always a way in, and there's always a back door.

Sometimes I've spent years trying to find it on certain holes.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

My short and concise answer is the greens of Royal Melbourne which appear to be the perfect blend of both.
If the ball is played into the correct quadrant they are receptive, if you miss they are repellant..perfect..it is impossible to argue with that as an architects plan.

[JESII]

Great topic Mark, I think the posts could/should evolve into much more than simply "a little bit of both".

Tom Paul
I can relate very well to that story of the 13th at County Down, as I had similar experiences during the 1999 British Amateur there.

Based on the theory used for #13 at RCD wouldn't most every green built on sloping terrain that allowed for a similar sort of ground approach from the sides fit the criteria for a collection/repellant green. For those that know Huntingdon Valley just outside of Philadelphia; #'s 2, 3, 6, 12, 15 and 18 seem to have many of the same characteristics although not to the same width extent.

My links experience is unfortunately limited, but I would imagine this feature is very prominent on many courses in the British Isles.

All that being said, is it fair to consider a single hole both collection and repel oriented? Doesn't it make more sense to determine the primary emphasis of the hole and classify it that way? The 13th at RCD would obviously fit the collection model because of the exaggerated line you must take into the green to actually successfully hit the green, while a Redan style hole would generally fit the reppellant class better because of the penalties associated with missing your intended area.

[JESII]

There's room for both but which has the most positives versus the negatives.

I guess the answer to this has alot to do with how difficult you think golf ought to be. The collection school would cater to the player that wants as much help as possible in reaching the green, while the repel school favors the reward earned by a first rate shot.

As for a steady dose, I would prefer the collection style because there is still a reward for the first rate shot, while the penalty for a lesser shot is reduced. It also leaves a much wider opening for luck which is, and should be a variable.

Think of Tom Paul's story of the 13th at RCD where he thought he was aiming well off to the right of the green and missed his shot well right of what he was attempting and the result was a two-footer for birdie. The next time he plays that hole he will aim to the spot where this last one landed and hopefully execute it right and get the same length putt.

On the repellant holes one must always hit the shot. This concept is fine in many ways, and for an overall style it would provide a much sterner test of skill, but would run the risk of overdoing the difficulty of golf.

Would #13 at Pine Valley be considered a collection or repellant style?

[Tom_Doak]

This is probably one of the biggest differences between Mr. Nicklaus' style and my own, and one of the hardest things we've had to find a middle ground on at Sebonack.  

No, we haven't just made them all flat.    We've got some of each, although my associates keep building things wide and convex as we tend to like them, and Jack's associates keep asking us to make them concave.  They say it's so they'll have good visibility up to the entrance of the green, but it's also so their straight shots will never bounce into an unfavorable lie, which is strange since everyone in Jack's company is hitting wedge to every green anyway.

Fortunately Jack is interested in trying new things, so he's given us some leeway to include some convex stuff as well.

I don't agree at all with the characterization of Pete Dye's work as "repel," however.  Most of the surface drainage on those bulkheaded greens flows back ONTO the green; and every single piece of fairway at Whistling Straits drains into a catch basin within the fairway, so it's all concave.  It's the thing I like least about Pete's work, because it's unnatural.  He used to be a master of surface drainage.

[ed_getka]

Tom,
  Why do you think Pete has moved away from something he did so well? Is the catch basin just an easier, more economical way?

[ed_getka]

I like a variety of both styles. Ideally I would like a different look coming into every green as long as overall it all ties together. The fun for a golfer of my level (12 handicap), is figuring out how to use the contours to help me get up and down to save par, which I have to try and do a lot at my level. I think having the imagination to be able to use the contours gives me an advantage over an otherwise similarly talented golfer. So whether it is collection or repelling, it is the imagination that you apply to it that makes it fun to try and figure out.

[Tom_Doak]

A shame this topic came up the week of the GOLFWEEK rankings, so no one has paid attention to it.  I think it's one of the "great divides" of design.  97% of modern architects manipulate things toward collection drainage, while the older guys built their features on crowns to maximize surface drainage.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Drainage became an interesting topic this winter in SoCal.  While the LA Open was being washed out, Torrey with traditional surface drainage was very playable--played 27 both Sat and Sun.  The Rees drainage areas were the only muddy areas.  Played another modern drainage course and again the drainge collection areas were still soaked and muddy several days after the rain ended.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

Would you not say, generally speaking, that an architect such as Dye, and his style or aesthetic, is one of "thin margins for error" in that a lot of the SIDES of his holes, LZs and particularly green sections are razor thin margins of error  between "salvation and damnation"? All the ones from Dye I've ever seen sure do have a lot of that characteristics (bulkheads being the best example). With architecture of that type and style I'd almost think you'd have to have "collection back in" near those razor thin edges or golfers would probably just freak out!

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

You're absolutely right about Pete's work.  No one wants to see their ball land on the edge of a green and bounce sideways off into a water hazard, so Pete tried to keep that from happening, because the penalty is so severe.  However, his habit of collecting drainage inside fairways at Whistling Straits CAUSES a lot of sharp edges between fairway and green ... if he wasn't so strict about it he wouldn't have had to build up the edges of the fairways everywhere.

A lot of modern architecture is similar, black-and-white risk/reward.  I prefer grey tones.

[Mike_Cirba]

I think I remember Tommy once saying that great courses are convex, while other lesser courses are concave. Pretty interesting imagery, and pretty insightful, in my limited experience.

George,

That was me.  

I have so few original thoughts that I have to zealously claim the ones I do have!    Actually, I'm sure someone's thought of it before, but I do recall the day when my dim brain finally made that connection.

It occurred to me after Pete Galea posted pictures of Olde Kinderhook by Rees Jones (or, at least by a talented associate).  Strangely and surprisingly, it was as if the traditional Rees course was inside out...instead of mounding and scooping, greens were situated at the high points, and fairways were hog-backed.  

It occurred to me that almost every feature the old guys utilized was on the crest of a natural land form.  

In fact, doing the opposite was so rare that a name was attached to the few times they did it...i.e. the "punchbowl".  

Containment is really a pox on modern golf, and the whole issue of convex versus concave deisgn remains the biggest difference between Golden Age designers and what passes for greatness today.

[ForkaB]

This is slightly OT, but how do you drain a punchbowl green built on non-sandy soil?  The two punchbowls at Dornch (8 and 17) both become lakes when there is heavy rain. It is amazing how fast they become dry, however, once the rain stops.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't like collection areas because they tend to force a specific shot from a specific location, which usually suffers from overuse.

I prefer the randomness of the repelled shot.

[TEPaul]

"This is slightly OT, but how do you drain a punchbowl green built on non-sandy soil?  The two punchbowls at Dornch (8 and 17) both become lakes when there is heavy rain. It is amazing how fast they become dry, however, once the rain stops."

Rich:

The simple answer is you don't. Didn't you know punchbowl greens were initially designed and built to maximumly retain water, not drain it??? This was before our sophisticated computerized irrigation systems or irrigation systems altogether other than good old Mother Nature who despite being as awesome as she's always been was never known for her consistency in the irrigating deptartment.

It didn't take you long to become an ignorant slut again, did it?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()