Greens contouring

[Tom_Doak]

So much of the discussion of courses here nowadays is about the LOOK of this or that golf course and nothing about how it plays.  And the discussion of the look is all about the bunkers ... nothing about the way greens are framed or backgrounded or not, nothing about visual balance vs. imbalance, etc.

The most important parts of design are 1) routing, 2) greens contouring, with bunkering third at best.  I don't know how to discuss routing in a general sense, so I thought I would try to start a topic on greens contouring.  I'd much rather discuss it than aerial photos of my courses.

Mr. Nicklaus has taken to praising our collaboration because he says he learned a lot about using internal greens contours.  That's nice of him and I think it's more fair to say that we REMINDED him of it and showed him a bit about how to do it, because we certainly didn't invent such a thing and he has seen it once or twice beforehand ... just not in the construction environment.

In truth, we taught him all he needed to know about internal greens contouring on our first walk-through.  Jim Urbina had roughed in a couple of greens before the rest of the shapers arrived, and he threw in a whole bunch of internal contours as he and I had discussed on my previous visit.  Jack loved those two greens in particular and that's what he's latched onto as part of our contribution.  [Hopefully we made some other valuable contributions as well.]

I am a big fan of internal contouring, partly because I think it has been overlooked.  Some architects try too hard to tie every contour in the green into something outside of the green ... that's what produced those "spines" which Pat Mucci loves but which I think are the least attractive feature of Rees Jones and Tom Fazio greens.  I think it all stems from drawing greens plans to begin with ... when you are drawing one-foot or two-foot contour lines, just one more line to accentuate the feature on the drawing produces a large shoulder in real life.  Plus, there are a lot of shapers who have become convinced that everything has to tie in as described, and they just do it automatically.

Mark Parsinen told me that he insisted on tying in the contours of the greens at Kingsbarns to larger features outside, and honestly, while I love Kingsbarns generally, I hate that concept and I think it is exactly why some professionals dislike the course ... those features become exaggerated as they pull away from the green and prevent inventive chipping and recovery play because there is too much gravity in play.

I could go on and on about greens but I will take a breath and let others discuss a while.

[Jim Franklin]

I recently played Silva's restoration of the Elkridge CC in Baltimore bringing back Raynor's original greens and bunkering and my favorite green is the "thumb print" green. Why isn't this used more today? It gives plaenty of variety for pin placements and certainly plays a strategic role in your approach to the green as well.  

[Jimmy Muratt]

Most greens really show a lack of imagination on the architect's part.  Tying the contours into the adjacent surrounds is often an easy and predictable way to shape the edges of greens, but most designers forget about internal contours.  

I prefer greens that when you have  35' foot, you have several different options to play.  They require much study to begin to learn how to play them properly.  These are the types of greens, and courses for that matter, that draw me back for return visits.  

Green contours and a great routing are what really separate the great courses from the merely good.  I hope Nicklaus and his team take what he learned  on internal contours and apply it to Dismal River.  Sand Hills Golf Club perfectly demonstrates the importance of routing and internal contouring.  Those two factors will be key in determining just how good Dismal River actually is.

[henrye]

So much of the discussion of courses here nowadays is about the LOOK of this or that golf course and nothing about how it plays.  And the discussion of the look is all about the bunkers ... nothing about the way greens are framed or backgrounded or not, nothing about visual balance vs. imbalance, etc.

The most important parts of design are 1) routing, 2) greens contouring, with bunkering third at best.  I don't know how to discuss routing in a general sense, so I thought I would try to start a topic on greens contouring.

I don't want to take this off topic, but if one is discussing the look of a golf course where does Fairway framing/background and balance fit into the relative importance of design?  Is it not as important as the greens?  IMHO it is.

Lastly, on the topic of bunkering, I often find that visually attractive 'non-strategic' bunkers can give a great first impression of a course, but as I play a course over and over it is the strategic ones, that fall into the lines of play, that almost always become the most memorable.

[Mike Nuzzo]

My favorite green is the 2nd at Pine Valley.
I would say those contours don't all tie in to the outsides.

A pimple is a good example of a green feature that doesn't tie in to the outside.  The biggest pimple I've seen is the volkswagon in the 8th green at Hidden Creek.  
The Hogs back green at Forsgate (Banks) doesn't tie in either, nor did the horseshoe green.

Those are extreme examples, which may be why there is no othher green at PV like #2.

The 14th green at Cuscowilla had significant internal contour.  
Although they may have been L. Duran's least favorite part about Dallas National, two or three of those greens had good internal contour.

Tom,
Were Parsinen's views on tying everything back to the surrounds, an over reaction to all the mounds and features surrounding modern greens that don't tie into the greens?

[Jeff_Mingay]

Mike,

I agree. The second green at Pine Valley is UNBELIEVABLE. The contour in that green is as random and exciting as anything at St. Andrews!

[Bill Gayne]

This topic is one of the many architectural features of The Old Course that I found fascinating on my trip to last year's Open. The Old Course really does break from conventional wisdom in many ways.

My conventional wisdom being that there should be some type relationship between the length of the hole, the size of the green, and the amount of internal green contour. A long hole would have a large green and little internal green contour. Short hole the opposite.

The Old Course has the opposite, short holes with large greens, and scoring being resisted with internal contours. The locations to approach the pins not being clear from standing in the fairway or on tee boxes. I saw a lot of six to ten footers missed by the world's best players because of subtle internal contours.

[Brendan Dolan]

Interesting topic.  I was wondering if any one can give examples of where they have seen internal green countouring that didn't tie into the surrounds?  What form did it take, small hillock, depression, ridge, or any other type of small landform.  I am sure the Old Course at St. Andrews has a ton of this stuff.  I love the randomness of finding unique internal contouring on greens and it does lead to some fun putting.
 
One of the neatest greens I have ever seen was on the Old course at Ballyliffin.  The 17th green a par three of about 165 yards, had a huge depression in it, maybe 2-3 feet deep by about 4 feet a cross, it tied into nothing it was just there.  It helped to turn a rather bland par three into an interesting test of golf.  Thanks.

Brendan    

[wsmorrison]

Tom Doak,

How do you view the differences between greens that utilize internal contouring and those that rely more on complexities of slope?  

[Scott Witter]

Aside from the obvious strength in overall routing, playing diversity, visual interest, etc. and the set up of the individual holes, is not also the timeless enjoyment and endless character of the classics so often discussed here are attributed much and rightly so, to the greens and their fascinating internal contours?  Hopefully though, I am not telling you all something you already don't know, or have, but just never thought of it this way.

Tom Doak isn't really saying something so profound, not at least if you THINK instead of just look, but I support him by saying that it would be good to look through the glitter and hype and SEE the IMPORTANT features.  Think of the plateau greens of Ross, Raynor, Dunn, Travis; be they created by natural cuts or fills, these architects were masters of understanding what it meant to be creative in the development of interesting options around the putting surfaces.  When Raynor established a raised platform for a green surface and chopped off the edges with steep dramatic slopes, was he concerned about tying into the surrounding landscape, or particular feature...I don't believe so.

When MacKenzie made a profound cut to create one of his incredible surfaces and false fronts, was he attempting to mimic a feature or relate his thoughts and design elements to something nearby? If he was I don't think we would have some of the great layouts we cherish so.

I visited a course in the lower Adirondacks Mtns. NY a few years back, near Turin NY, don't remember the name now, but I have never seen such interesting internal, remarkable, yet subtle contours before and this was all the members talked about when asked what was the best feature on the course.  The putting surfaces, they said.  I asked them why? what was it about the surfaces?...they knew, they really did and they were right.

If you break it down, Tom has a point and it is at the heart of golf course design in the purest form.  Honestly, and many of us are guilty of it from time to time, some much more than others! the slick bunkers, whatever the hell they might look like,the mounds the shaping...and the blah, blah, blah.  In the end, I defy anyone of you to look back on your childhood and tell the rest of us that you loved the cool looking bunkers, or the way the putting surface tied into the surrounds, or the bunkers around the green, or how the mowing lines seemed  to flow from feature to feature...bull crap, you simply loved the landscape and the game for the innocence it offered and the pure enjoyment of striking the ball cleanly!  You weren't smart enough to anticipate evey bump and roll and therefore, when presented with an imperfect (oh GOD forbid!) lie, you used your imagination, or simply gave it a bump and watched to see what happened and if it worked you did it the next time or tried something else altogether.

Don't get me wrong there are a few posters who do understand the grand plan and the KEY details such as the backdrop to greens, bringing in the connection to the distant landscape, not the immediate 100 feet around the course and so on, but such as we are complicated beasts, the golf course must also have many complex details, designed and executed correctly, far and above the "pretty" dips and mounds, in order to make it "right" for us to visually appreciate and physically relate to on a level well beyond the ridiculus magazine pictures we see each day.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

Oh yeah, P.S. I am honestly quite surprised to hear/read that Jack Nicklaus didn't really know/understand what internal contour was or meant to the game of golf until he worked with Tom Doak.  What does that tell you?

[John Shimp]

Tom,
Could you provide a few examples of good/interesting internal green contouring?  One that comes to mind to me with a lot of contouring is the par-5 7th green at Friars Head. In your mind is that good internal contouring or just a wild green without that much strategy to playing into it? Thanks.

[Don_Mahaffey]

One of the reasons I think Apache Stronghold is such a great design (forget about present conditions, we're talking design here) is because of the use of internal contours. Everyone always mentions the 5th green and although I like it, I like the 11th better because of the little "ditches" that run through the green. Same with the 14th, the redan gets the notice, but I like the 15th better because of the use of internal contours. These aren't big mounds or large collection areas, just little fissures or gullies, or whatever you want to call 'em running through the greens. I personally think the green contours at AS are superior to those at PD, but I could live with either set of greens

[Tom_Doak]

Don:  The greens at Pacific Dunes are less severe because Mike Keiser wanted them that way.  He did not overrule anything we did; I had just gotten to know him well enough by then that we didn't push the envelope on the greens at Pacific ... we made them smaller and pushed the envelope AROUND the greens instead.

John S:  I did not like the 7th green at Friars Head the first time I played it, or even the second time, but I have come to respect it more now.  The part I don't like is the lower front left shelf (assuming they ever put the flag down there, which maybe they don't, since I've never seen it).  The transition to the upper shelf and to the fairway below is quite sharp and unnatural in appearance, and if you hit a great second shot onto the green and wind up on the shelf above, I don't know what you can do from there.

However, when I have played to a pin on the upper front right area, that's a great hole location ... if you miss down below you can putt past the hole and feed the ball back to the flag off the slope at the right edge of the green.  [Ken Bakst himself showed me that last summer.]  I think that is a very imaginative kind of shot and that's what I love about having contours in and around a green:  the chance to use those same devilish slopes TO YOUR ADVANTAGE if you have left yourself on the correct side of the hole.

As for the second green at Pine Valley, I've played about ten rounds there and I STILL don't know it well enough to comment.

P.S.  There is a list of courses with interesting greens in the back of The Anatomy of a Golf Course, as well as a list of courses with interesting bunkers and interesting routings.  There are several modern courses which would have qualified in one or more of those categories.

P.P.S.  The most underrated designer of greens is Walter Travis:  Hollywood and CC of Troy both have some phenomenal stuff.

[Troy Alderson]

Tom,

While I was only able to play Pacific Dunes once and before it was officially open to the guests, the setting is what I remember the most.  My favorite GC so far.  The internal contouring, however subtle, was more than I have ever seen in my golf career.  I loved it.

Myrtle Creek south of Roseburg OR has very severe contoured greens to the point the greenskeeper must cut the turf taller than usual to maintain pin placements and golfer sanity.

Question for you.  Does anyone put bunkers in later after the golf course has been played for a couple of years?  All to find the best placement of the bunkers to encourage strategic play.

Troy Alderson

[Tom_Doak]

Troy:

Early in the twentieth century, it was common wisdom that you should wait to put in the bunkers until after the course had been played a bit and you saw where people wanted to go.  This was the way it had been done on most links courses in the prehistoric era, and it was the way H.C. Leeds approached Myopia Hunt Club, as one example.  It was also part of our thinking behind not building bunkers at The Sheep Ranch.  [The other part was that without irrigation, we thought all the sand would just blow away.]

The feeling changed when golf architects started to be paid.  As professionals, we ought to be expected to anticipate how players will respond to the layout and place bunkers accordingly.  Dr. MacKenzie was pretty clear about that.  That doesn't mean we're infallible -- I think every architect should get back to play his own courses more often and to see how people are attacking them, but I now understand how hard it is to make time for that.

Ironically, though, a lot of MacKenzie's best work was done in creating bunker schemes to courses which someone else had already routed and built without bunkers ... that was the case for Kingston Heath, and for parts of Royal Melbourne where he simply moved the tees and rebunkered existing holes.

[Jeff_Brauer]

While I agree that internal contours are neato-keano, I will ask the practical question - how much does internal green contours increase green size, and does that fit in most budgets - either maintenance or construction?

Most supers wouldn't place a pin within 5 feet of a signifigant internal contour (whether deck, tier, pimple mound, valley, etc) unless he was planning on quitting anyway.....  A 6" high pimple with a 10% slope takes up 22 feet diameter, the pimple covers 360 sq. feet  and the non cupping area over 750 sq. feet overall.

Most agree that minimum green size to spread out cup spaces is about 5000 feet, which means that single feature adds 15% to the necessary size of the green.  Building USGA greens or similar at about $3.00/SF means that feature alone adds $2000 to the cost of the green, even as an "only child"  If it has siblings, it will cost more.

At the same time, adding contours that tie into the edges (usually in the last dozen feet of the green where cups are not typically set anyway) wastes no space, and gives the illusion of more contour than may actually affect putting.  AND, external contours are usually pretty good at influencing short game shots, although, internal ones can, too.

At least on my budget minded courses, that is why I don't do signifigant internal contours.  (Not the case where I have money, or acceptable green sand less than $10 per ton)

The few I have done have been regretted either by the superintendent for lost cup space or mowing difficulty, or just as often by good players who wonder why they have to putt directly over some mound directly between them and the hole that might deflect their putt like a force field on a bad Star Trek episode.

I have sympathy for the former, less so for the latter.  Nonetheless, its probably an idea best reserved for big budget courses with aspirations of greatness.

[paul cowley]

I think the most important part of greens featuring is to create something of memory that when done successfully allows the player to relate to and anticipate on future encounters......not just another horizontal, wavy edged tortilla shell with movement or tie-ins here and there, but a green that has a characteristic feature or personality that creates its identity.

CB and Raynor did this with their template greens but the same concept can work au naturelle....it just takes a little more thought with each new encounter.

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak said:

"I am a big fan of internal contouring, partly because I think it has been overlooked.  Some architects try too hard to tie every contour in the green into something outside of the green ... that's what produced those "spines" which Pat Mucci loves but which I think are the least attractive feature of Rees Jones and Tom Fazio greens.  I think it all stems from drawing greens plans to begin with ... when you are drawing one-foot or two-foot contour lines, just one more line to accentuate the feature on the drawing produces a large shoulder in real life.  Plus, there are a lot of shapers who have become convinced that everything has to tie in as described, and they just do it automatically.
Mark Parsinen told me that he insisted on tying in the contours of the greens at Kingsbarns to larger features outside, and honestly, while I love Kingsbarns generally, I hate that concept and I think it is exactly why some professionals dislike the course ... those features become exaggerated as they pull away from the green and prevent inventive chipping and recovery play because there is too much gravity in play.
I could go on and on about greens but I will take a breath and let others discuss a while."

TomD:

That opinion of yours about not liking green contours that tie into something outside the green just astounds me. In my book, that opinion just may be one of the most revealing of yours and the most intersting ever put on this website.

I always thought that kind of internal green tie-in to something outside the green was a sign and indication of good architecture for the simple reason that it made the green and its internal contouring look more like an extension of the rest of the surrounding area (that is providing the surrounding area does look natural). God knows how many times I've pointed to that kind of shoulder and said I felt that was a sign of good architecture (can't remember know who might've told me that).

And now you're saying you think that kind of "tie-in" is the least attractive feature. Please tell more---this kind of revelation and remark on the part of a good architect is what makes this website so interesting and educational.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

There are good tie ins and bad ones.  I suspect the ones Tom D DOESN'T like are the typical 2,3, or 4 mounds surrounding a green at predictable places - usually the inside curves of any shaped green other than a circle.

Thinking back to Maxwell greens, vs. those of other similar gca's, like Bill Diddell, whose greens were similar, but not as bold.  The difference is that Maxwell tied his greens to their exteriors, but often seemed to add mound in the middle areas somewhere that was totally internal.  Diddel did all his contouring tied to the outsides.  As I mentioned above, probably more practical, but less bold, even though his greens were fairly well contoured.  He seemingly took it back a notch to be more practical.

As a result, we remember "Maxwell greens" long after they were built.  Diddell is recalled as someone who shot his age many times, and who had many solid, few great, courses.  Being timid rather than bold never got anyone famous in gca!  But it may have made for a lot of very good golf in the midwest.

[TEPaul]

TomD said of the 7th green at Friar's Head:

"The transition to the upper shelf and to the fairway below is quite sharp and unnatural in appearance, and if you hit a great second shot onto the green and wind up on the shelf above, I don't know what you can do from there."

TomD:

I'm assuming you're talking about transitioning from the upper back part of that green to the area front left and front right. Obviously coming from anywhere in the back and above those areas you hope the pin is set in a place where the ball CAN stop near the pin, not to mention the incredible break from the back to the front right. There's always the chance maintenance will set pins too close to the downslopes. (Areas like those obvoiusly Friar's has to be very sensitive to green speed changes and pin settings to make those transitons work well enough). I putted all over that green one time for about a half hour just to see how the ball transitioned from one area to another but the greens weren't very quick so obviously I didn't see the full extent of it.

If the greens get quick enough of many courses with greens like that, including NGLA and probably Sebonack, and if the greens are around 10+ transitoning from some green areas to others get problematic for two putting. We sometimes call that kind of thing "greens within a green" and frankly it's probably one of the highest and most intense and challenging forms of strategy----approaching the green strategy.

I'd say just from looking at it that with a good greenspeed the pin on the left side of the 18th at Sebonack is probably no different and will have to be set pretty far left or balls transitioning across the down-slope from the right side of the green wouldn't stop near the pin.

The same is true on the 1st, 3rd, 6th, 11th, 15th holes of NGLA from some green sections to others with any kind of decent greenspeed.

[Bill_McBride]

Tom Doak, have you built any greens like #9 at Friars Head with that big mound in the front center?  I can't think of one at either Pacific Dunes or Apache Stronghold.  It didn't seem very natural at the time, but I hear it was and was just left there!  

[TEPaul]

Jeff Brauer said:

"Thinking back to Maxwell greens, vs. those of other similar gca's, like Bill Diddell, whose greens were similar, but not as bold.  The difference is that Maxwell tied his greens to their exteriors, but often seemed to add mound in the middle areas somewhere that was totally internal.  Diddel did all his contouring tied to the outsides.  As I mentioned above, probably more practical, but less bold, even though his greens were fairly well contoured.  He seemingly took it back a notch to be more practical.

As a result, we remember "Maxwell greens" long after they were built.  Diddell is recalled as someone who shot his age many times, and who had many solid, few great, courses.  Being timid rather than bold never got anyone famous in gca!  But it may have made for a lot of very good golf in the midwest."

JeffB:

I'm just trying to learn something here as some of what TomD said on this thread sort of goes against what I've always heard. Maybe to say it goes against it is too strong---I just always thought what he said he thinks is not particularly attractive was a sign of good green building----eg to "tie" green contours into exterior contours (assuming those exterior contours are natural or look natural).

This just could be one of the most interesting threads I've ever seen on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com. I mean, siting or architecturally "tying in" a green or green site to look like it's naturally occuring in some way is probably just icing on the cake anyway. After-all some of the most memorable and interesting greens in the world don't look in the slightest naturally occuring or "tied-in" to their surrounding areas.

Examples of that are some of the most interesting greens at NGLA---eg #6!, #7!!!, #8!! etc.

[TEPaul]

Jeff Brauer said:

"Thinking back to Maxwell greens, vs. those of other similar gca's, like Bill Diddell, whose greens were similar, but not as bold.  The difference is that Maxwell tied his greens to their exteriors, but often seemed to add mound in the middle areas somewhere that was totally internal.  Diddel did all his contouring tied to the outsides.  As I mentioned above, probably more practical, but less bold, even though his greens were fairly well contoured.  He seemingly took it back a notch to be more practical.

As a result, we remember "Maxwell greens" long after they were built.  Diddell is recalled as someone who shot his age many times, and who had many solid, few great, courses.  Being timid rather than bold never got anyone famous in gca!  But it may have made for a lot of very good golf in the midwest."

JeffB:

I'm just trying to learn something here as some of what TomD said on this thread sort of goes against what I've always heard. Maybe to say it goes against it is too strong---I just always thought what he said he thinks is not particularly attractive was a sign of good green building----eg to "tie" green contours into exterior contours (assuming those exterior contours are natural or look natural).

This just could be one of the most interesting threads I've ever seen on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com. I mean, siting or architecturally "tying in" a green or green site to look like it's naturally occuring in some way is probably just icing on the cake anyway. After-all some of the most memorable and interesting greens in the world don't look in the slightest naturally occuring or "tied-in" to their surrounding areas.

Examples of that are some of the most interesting greens at NGLA---eg #6!, #7!!!, #8!! etc.

[Jim Sweeney]

This is very interesting topic.

A Biarritz green certainly has a particularly inflential interior contour, yet it had better be tied into its surroundings or it will occasionally become a small lake!

Consider Somerset Hills. There, some greens seem tied very naturally into their surrounds and have little interior contour (#12, small and sloped though subtle) and some have very pronounced contours (#13, horizontal spine tying into nothing).

At the TPC at Sawgrass. Number 17 has nothing to tie into and has definite interior contour, whereas number 8 has contours that tie into the surrounds throughout the green.

Camargo also mixes both styles. The twin spines on #4 run vertically and are not influenced by the surrounds, whereas the fourteenth is much more subtle and the contours are tied into the mounds on the right.

Variety is the spice of life. It is fine to prefer one style to the other, but both can be done well.

For consistently great interior contours (classic) I'd vote for Raynor (Yale); and for great "tie in" contouring (classic) Ross, with many fine examples.

In the modern catagory, I'd vote for Dye for interior, and C&C for tie-in. (Sorry Mr. Doak, but I've not yet played enough of your courses to honestly consider you, though I hear good things....)

I might vote for Tillinghast and MacKenzie as the best at combining the two styles, even on the same hole. As evidence I again offer Somerset for Tilly, and Crystal Downs  or Pasatiempo for Mac.

Perhaps in MacKenzie we find the genesis of our friend Mr. Doak's preference.

Anyone agree? Or disagree?

[Bill Wernecke Jr]

Gentlemen

First I want to say this is a great thread.  It really got me to do some original thinking about greens contours.

Tom, after buying your original Confidential Guide, and drinking the proverbial Kool-Aid, I went over to Michigan to play High Pointe and Black Forest to try to understand what you were telling me about greens contours.  And my eyes were opened.  I remember the hogsback on the back nine at High Point, for example, as something that was so simple and yet original and changed the entire play of the hole depending on pin position.

I agree with one of the respondents above that one of the very underrated architects with regards to interior greens contours is Pete Dye.  Granted at Whistling Straits, he had the advantage of a huge budget and built some very large greens.  But the way he mixed contours that reflect the landscape, and others that do not (some counter to the landscape), I thought was brilliantly done.

At WS, if you hit it close to the hole, you have a good chance to make the putt.  15 feet or further, you have some thinking to do.  And 30 feet plus, you usually have two breaks and some speed issues.  Fun stuff!

Remember on the final day of the PGA, on hole #18, where five or six pros had a chance to tie or win after hitting the green in regulation? If I recall, Ernie Els and Chris Riley were two players who, by putting themselves in the wrong position, 3-putted to knock themselves out.  How many times do you see that in a pro tournament?  I thought it was a great test of golf.

I know many of you have played WS, and I am curious as to how you found the greens there.  I think they are a very underrated factor in the success of the design.