[wsmorrison]

One of the universal occurences over time is the simplification of green outlines.  Not only do greens shrink over time but their outlines become simplified into round or oval shapes.  I'd like to address two questions, one to architects and one to superintendents.

For architects:  How complicated do you design green outlines including the integration with greenside bunkers?  Do you assume they will be simplified over time no matter how you design them and therefore make less complicated and more geometric shapes?

For superintendents:  How much more costly (time and expense) is it to hand-mow greens to maintain original green shapes and sizes?  I know it must take less time to mow simplified shapes rather than complex ones, but is it a necessary fact of life, especially on classic courses that may benefit the most from challenges to par with more and varied pin positions?

Here's an example of a typical Flynn green that is fairly complicated; the second at Columbia CC:



Most of Flynn's drawings had the greens and bunkers closely integrated and also pretty complex shapes.  Rarely was a Flynn green drawn or built in a simple outline.  Today, like so many classic era greens, the shape is a simple oval within the old boundary of the green.  Many interesting and some of the most difficult pin positions are lost.  Significant portions of some of the lobes are lost entirely (middle left, back right and front).

I know that a lot of restorations these days try and go back to original dimensions.  How many go back to the original shapes and really recapture the variety of pin positions and resulting strategies that used to exist?

Or let me ask the questions as I imagine John Kavanaugh would:

What disgusts you the most about green shrinkage and simplified green outlines?  Are superintendents underthinking the maintenance practices?  Anybody who thinks that superintendents have to maintain them as such is a liar.

[Kyle Harris]

Wayne,

A lot of classic era courses experience green and fairway shrinkage as a function of the depression. I know Bethpage State Park was forced to shrink the greens by as much as 50% to save on maintenance budget.

Schuylkill Country Club went through a similarly slim time during the 1960s that forced some greens to lose the original contour.

The White Course lost the green contour because of budget reasons and negligence.

What disgusts me about the whole thing is the loss of some of the original angles of attack and "tucked" hole locations in the greens. By having the greens smaller, and less integrated with the features a lot of strategic elements are lost all the way back to the tee.

There is an old hole location on the 8th green of the White Course that almost necessitates an approach from the right side of the fairway (an area in the fairway pinched by two bunkers). Anything from the left is blind and coming over a deep chasm of a bunker much like that to the left of the 7th at Huntingdon Valley. This hole location has been lost by green shrinkage and is currently sitting in about 3 inches of grass rough.

[Jimbo]

Shrinkage and softening are due to maintenance practices.

Mowers are more afraid of scalping outside the green perimeter than of leaving a little more collar or rough in toward the green.  Which will be noticed and commented on to them first?  And an 1/8th or 1/16th of an inch daily over time adds up quickly.  After 5 years at current course, we had encroachments of up to 12-18".  

You must also be tolerant of scalping out the rough/collar grasses, if different from the greens grass, that may have encroached onto the green and may not allow the green perimeter to look as crispy and uniform as you'd like.

One solution is installing wire along the perimeter of the green, preferably during construction, that can be traced and painted periodically, and having the discipline to scalp it back out at least yearly, despite what that scalping looks like to those who have no idea what you're doing.  In some cases, certain parts of the green will actually expand so that has to be dealt with.

Shouldn't be the architects problem.  Unless he knows that the resources that must be put in place to allow for dealing with it won't be there, or if he thinks its not that big a deal to begin with.

Does this satisfy the Kavanaugh take?

Happy New Year to all.

P.S.  Flynn's sexy hill draining right on to the green probably got someone fired around '28.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Wayne-
I'd guess that Flynn and others drew their green shapes to evoke interest using contouring, without the intent to have those planform shapes mowed that way.  If there was a collar between the green and bunker, it would look awful - to me anyway.

Talking Stick had some of the best greens I'd seen this year, and everyone of them was almost a perfect circle in planform.  It was also the height of cut of the surrounds.

Those concave mow lines look much worse in person than on Flynn's drawings.

Cheers

[Mike_Young]

Wayne,
I do not mean to sound as though I am attacking Flynn's green drawings but they seem extremely simple to me.  5 different builders could build it in 5 different ways.  Not to say that it is not a good green design etc but it is mainly just a very neat two dimensional drawing.  I do not see one being able to build or interpret from this drawing unless the architect was present.  In the field I try to draw mine with as much simplicity but in my set of drawings they are done with much more detail in order to justify existense.
As for outlines changing.....if a perimeter cut is moved just .25 inches once a week it can change the perimeter by as much as 14 inches in a year.  It may be that in some places the missed cut is to the inside and in others it is to the outside. Now multiply that by 50 years and there is no wonder that green edges change. All one can do is to place a wire in the ground for an annual check-up or gps the complex.
Happy New Year,
Mike

[wsmorrison]

Flynn spent a great deal of time on site during the design and construction phases of the golf courses he worked on.  This is one reason his portfolio of courses is so small as compared to a number of his contemporaries and also one reason why so many of his courses stood the test of time.  

I am not presenting the Columbia design drawing as a rigid example but rather a sample of the rather complicated outlines that Flynn, Ross (later in his career), Mackenzie and others used at some point in their careers.  I posted the drawing to demonstrate to some on the website that might not know how detailed green outlines were intended in the classic era and how much is lost when the greens have shrunk dramatically and pin positions lost.

My point is, if these guys knew about maintenance practices, and you'd have to assume that Flynn did as he was one of the early great superintendents in America, then you'd assume they would design with some sense of retention of the features in mind.  Why did they design complicated outlines if there was no chance they'd be maintained that way?  Did they lack foresight or is it mostly a maintenance issue?

The changing equipment and budgetary constraints at different points in time certainly influenced how green outlines were maintained.  Is it possible to return to the original contour lines and reestablish lost pin positions that directly affect strategies and the design intent in terms of difficulty?

Mike Young,

The Flynn drawings do not represent what you are used to seeing in other designers.  We've debated this point before.  I don't know about other architects, but Flynn's plans were specific and exact.  Construction drawings differed from presentation drawings (such as the Columbia CC drawing) and along with detailed construction instructions and a familiar crew allowed Flynn to build as drawn.  His time spent on site and the number of iterations he went through on paper preceded work in the ground.  This doesn't mean changes weren't made during construction.  Sometimes subsurface issues required making changes.  But more than most, Flynn's methods were unique and not well understood.  This doesn't seem to ring true to you, or so it seems.  Please do not concentrate on the limitations of the 2-dimensional drawing I presented in my example.  Why do you question the ability to build from this drawing?  I never stated you could for in fact this style of drawing was not meant as a construction drawing but rather an illustration of the work that was going to be done.  Although it was an illustration that was done to scale and carefully iterated to the final design that was going to be built in accordance with the representation in the drawing.  Flynn's method of design and building differed from those before him and in his era.


I do not take your comments as attacking Flynn.  But I do not think his greens are extremely simple.  Not at all.  There are not overt contours as some architects use but a complexity of slopes that is difficult to determine except over time.  I think as a result Flynn greens take longer to understand from a playability standpoint and an appreciation perspective.  This is a very strong positive in terms of private courses.  You want them to have a long learning curve to keep up interest and challenge.

[Mike_Young]

Wayne,
OK I will not single out Flynn.  I think many of the dead guy drawings were much less descriptive than Flynn's.
But if anyone does a drawing such as the attached drawing it is nothing more than a nice picture.  Give that drawing to 5 contractors today and you will have 5 different greens.  
Now, I appreciate and enjoy Flynn as much as any dead guy architect.  However it is my opinion that much more detail would be needed in order to build this green.  However, I am sure his time on site made up for any issues I might assume were present in his drawings.  

And I do think that only asbuilts can be used to help maintain green perimeters.

AND...I never said his greens were simple....I said his drawings were simple....IMHO what matters is what he was able to put on the ground.....and in a way those structures  were simple...if you look at most Flynn greens they consist of three perimeter mounds flowing into the center area of his greens....they vary in elevation, width and depth.  These three mounds seem to be the basis of all of his green complexes.  I was told this by Ron Kirby(in the late 1980's), an architect that worked with Dick wilson for awhile and he showed me how Wilson had been taught by Flynn to use the mounds (Moutain course Callaway Gardens) in such a way.  When bob and I were at RG last year it was obvious on all of the greens.  It is a very simple solid concept that works.

[Ian Andrew]

Wayne,

I have lots of drawings like the one you showed, when I have a photo from near or on opening day, they most often do not match. Almost all of the greens do not have the severe lobes found on the plans; they are a much simpler shape ( I think this occurs naturally after finishing and blending ).

I look at those drawings as stylized to indicate the character and startegy; I would be hesitant to ever follow the exact shape without photographic proof.


Mike,

The best shaper you work with could likely build exactly what you wanted from a simple napkin sketch. Correct ?

I think you have to look at these drawings and remember that the same people built the courses over and over, and that this form of drawing was sufficient for communication.

[Jim_Kennedy]

My point is, if these guys knew about maintenance practices, and you'd have to assume that Flynn did as he was one of the early great superintendents in America, then you'd assume they would design with some sense of retention of the features in mind.  Why did they design complicated outlines if there was no chance they'd be maintained that way?  Did they lack foresight or is it mostly a maintenance issue? -Wayne Morrison

Wayne,
I believe that triplex mowers made their way onto golf courses in the late sixties and were widely used by 1975. That's some 30(?) years after Flynn's passing so I don't see how he could have reasonably foreseen their impact.

I don't think "SGO" happened by maintenance practices only, although shaving off some here and some there could add up quickly, saving the equivilant materials cost of a 'green' or more.  
Clubs probably saw, or perceived, savings in a couple of other areas, too. Triplexes must have seemed heaven sent to the budget concious during this time. One man could do the same work in the same amount of time as 3 or 4 men using walk behinds, saving on labor costs.
There would also be less equipment to buy and maintain. If you have 3 walkers you will more than likely need 3 transporters. They all use gas, in a time when gas was more expensive than it is today, and you're maintaining more vehicles.

I think that it's mainly the combination of modern equipment and perceived, or real, cost savings that led to "SGO". Take the triplex out of the picture and irregular shaped greens may have gotten smaller over time but their outlines would have stood a better chance of remaining as built (I think   ).  

[Steve Curry]

Wayne,

I think green shrinkage was a result of the Ignorant Era, a period during which these things just weren't thought about by most.  Couple this with ease of work and cost savings and you get smaller round greens.

Steve

[Mike_Young]

Ian,
Happy New Year.
I agree with your statements.  I would assume you do it much the same way when in the field.  Yes, most shapers can work from a napkin.  Don't you agree.  
I agree with you that the Flynn drawing is excellent for showing strategy and style.  As you say, I too, have collected as many of these old memoribilia as I come across.
And , as you say, I think this drawing was sufficient information for someone that was building his work over and over.
I just don't consider these drawings working drawings.  They are very nice pictures and I appreciate the drafting efforts that went into them but they could be interpreted inmany different ways by different minds.  JMO
Mike

[Jim_Coleman]

   They shrink?  I don't know how you guys deal with those things.
             ....  Elaine Benes

[Mike_Young]

Wayne,

I think green shrinkage was a result of the Ignorant Era, a period during which these things just weren't thought about by most.  Couple this with ease of work and cost savings and you get smaller round greens.

Steve

Steve,
I am slowly coming to the conclusion that the "ignorant era" may not have been as ignorant as we might think.  I choose to call it the realistic era evolving from the idealistic era out of necessity.  I think we are back in an idealistic era for golf and it will take such innovations, as was the triplex greensmower, to pull us ot of this era.  What I am trying to say is that in one form or another golf is underwritten today, in most cases.  Whether it be lot sales, municipal funding, initiation fees or some other form.  I just don't know of much golf that can sustain itself.  I think the "ignorant era" was a time when golf was being forced to do so.
JMO
Mike

[wsmorrison]

Mike,

I heartedly agree that the posted drawing for the second green at Columbia CC is not a construction drawing.  We have numerous examples of these by Flynn (there was a thread on this before) where the detail is exhaustive and easily followed by a familiar and not so familiar construction crew.

I am far more interested in how the greens might be restored more faithfully to their original forms.  Courses such as Cascades, Shinnecock Hills and The Country Club in Brookline are starting to restore lost greenspace.  What is the maintenance process that must be instituted to retain the recaptured green space and shapes?  I am certain it is not easy to do given that over time lost green space was maintained differently than retained green space, especially as regards top-dressing and the resulting changes of contours in the surrounds.

[Steve Curry]

Mike,

I would agree if not for the fact that this occurred at very wealthy private clubs as well.  I think to a large extent many didn't see what was happening.  I have seen irrigation installed in the original green outline this wouldn't suggest knowledge or concern for the intended.  

An interesting thought too, is that the smaller greens take more wear and fail easier and can therefore in today’s demand be more expensive to maintain than mowing them to the intended contour.

Steve

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
Lost green space is not that hard to recover.  We're doing that right now at Cherry Hills, Brookside, Bucknell, and Suneagles and also at Lehigh as well.  The process is not that complicated and you and I talked a little about it during your visit.  The expansion process depends on the amount of green space lost and the whims of the superintendent.  In some areas like at Lehigh and on a few of the greens at Cherry Hills, it is simply a matter of mowing back out on the collars.  Our #6 green at Lehigh for example tends to shrink in the front from mowing.  We've lost a few feet on each side in the last ten years.   We're bringing that back out though mowing.  Other areas might need some coring out and sodding or (using old plugs, etc) and our specs vary from course to course depending on the extent of expansion and so on.  Remember these old greens didn't have cavities.  With some simple probing and soil tests you can tell what needs to be done and where you need to make adjustments.  

I do tend to agree that Flynn's drawings were more conceptual in nature like Ross' drawings as well as those of many other golden age architects.  If you have any "as builts" from Flynn that you could post an example, I'd love to see them.  These are very rare to find.  I believe architects (including Flynn) made a lot of field adjustments (as pointed out above) and few if any detailed their changes in new sets of "as built" drawings.  For example, do you have an "as built" drawing or even a "construction drawing" for that Columbia green you posted?  It would be interesting to compare.  

I was at a Ross course the other day looking at an old set of drawings and what he built was close, but surely not exact by any means.  If anyone needed good drawings it would have been Ross do to the amount of time he was on site.  You would think someone like Flynn who was on the job more offer would have less need for detailed drawings?  As Tom Doak once told me, "Why waste your time and the clients money with detailed drawings?  You're just going to change it and do what looks right when you are in the field anyway".  

Mark

[Mike_Young]

Wayne,
I think that the most important tool in bringing greens back to their original perimeter is an "accurate" as-built.  And I don't think there were many.  So, lacking an accurate asbuilt I think it takes experienced guess work using a probe etc.   And, in my opinion (not the USGA's) you can have a soil anaysis performed on the existing green, rototill the area to be recaptured,  remove the dirt and replace with a root zone similar to the green's root zone,  tie in the recaptured areas and plant the grass.  (this may be over simplified)  And then I have seen a couple of courses where they just decided, today is the day and they started to maintain the old perimeters as green space, heavy aerifiying, rolling, round-up whatever it took and just let it evolve back.
My pet peeve is this era of so called "restorations" where the experts use all of these drawings and show the club all of these drawings of how it was "meant to be".  Well, if it is a club that hasn't really been touched by shaping and earthwork in years then it should be easy to "find " how it was meant to be in the dirt.  I sincerely believe that most drawings of the past and present were used as a tool to put the course on the ground.  I think that in most cases the end results were the architects intent on that day.  And he never thought of the drawings again.  And if the results were not exactly the architect's intent due to no site visits and local construction crews....well.....I wager that it evolved over the years into an acceptable product.  I am against(in most cases) a "restoration expert" coming in and telling a club that "Mr. dead guy did not want this" and Mr. Dead Guy would have moved this tee etc"......  in most cases memberships never worried about "Mr. Dead Guy"until we made him a marketing tool in the last few years.  They worried about "ABC Country Club" and how it worked for them.  

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Looks like our posts crossed at the same time.  We've said some of the same things.  The one thing I will add is that courses don't always "evolve" for the better.  That is where someone knowledgable about the past is helpful.  
Mark

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

I would agree it not for the fact that this occurred at very wealthy private clubs as well.  I think to a large extent many didn't see what was happening.  I have seen irrigation installed in the original green outline this wouldn't suggest knowledge or concern for the intended.  

Any interesting thought too, is that the smaller greens take more wear and fail easier and can therefore in today’s demand be more expensive to maintain than mowing them to the intended contour.

Steve

Steve,
My father-in-law was a supt for several old Fl clubs that had money during the 50's thru the 80's. ( Indian Creek, Gulfstream and Everglades, 2 Ross's and a Flynn)  And you are correct not much thought was given to green perimeters, bunker flashing etc. I have even seen irrigation heads in a green.  Usually directions were given to the supts by one guy and he was probably there all winter and gone in the summer.  Today we are in a period where these things are important, and not just in golf courses.  Look at many of the reworked old neighborhoods.  Much of this stuff is a fad and while I think it is a good fad, I think it will pass and the great old courses will still have to stand on routing and strategy.  

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
Looks like our posts crossed at the same time.  We've said some of the same things.  The one thing I will add is that courses don't always "evolve" for the better.  That is where someone knowledgable about the past is helpful.  
Mark

Mark,
We did pass in writing.  Happy New Year.
I do agree that not all evolved for the better. (that only works in people, right?)  And yes knowledge of the past is extremely helpful in these cases.  But it needs to be good functional knowledge IMO.  If a product is 75% there it doesn't need to be reworked at a couple of million just to say it is 100% there.  I think the main thing is to give a club a product that they can maintain and enjoy and works for them.  I think you would agree that in most cases this can be attained for much less than is thought.  Yet so many experts get these clubs "caught up" in the "thoughts of the dead guy" when all they need from an expert is just a little common sense based on historical knowledge.  

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Restoration doesn't have to be expensive.  In many cases it is far less expensive then doing redesign and/or remodeling.  And also, not every course should be restored.  But every course deserves at least some careful study for restoration before bringing in the bulldozers and ripping it up.  
Mark

[wsmorrison]

I disagree with both Mike and Mark.  Flynn would continue drawing numerous interations, up to seven for a given course, until he came up with a plan that was meant to be carried out exactly according to the plan.  I know this is unique and not a method used by other architects.  It does not mean he didn't do it.  If you could look at some of his series of design iterations, perhaps the Country Club in Pepper Pike is one of the best examples, you'd realize what minute changes he was making along the way.  Tom and I would scratch our head looking at the small, seemingly insignificant changes.  But they weren't insignificant to Flynn.  He did them all the time.  Why design on paper rather than on the ground?  If he was accustomed to doing it that way, it had real advantages.  It was a better way; cheaper in the days of dynamite and horse drawn scrapers.

This isn't to say that he never made changes on the ground.  In some cases he made significant changes after the intial construction on many courses.  Some for a period of 20 years or more.

I have posted the detailed construction-type green drawings, I'll try to dig them up and repost.  It might be worth searching back a month or so.

As for simply mowing down surrounds back to green level.  This is possible in some cases, but where the green spaces were lost long ago, regrassing, top-dressing and other maintenance practice differences make it harder to do than just mow.  There are some greens at Cascades where mowing is all that is needed, others it is more complicated.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
I know about all the design iterations Flynn would go through.  I'm sure you remember some that we looked at for Cherry Hills.  Remember the hand penciled changes Flynn made on hole #3 where he added that Sahara type cross hazard.  

I do agree Flynn spent a lot of time trying to "get it right" on paper before he started moving dirt.  However, I doubt that he did many (if any) as built drawings of what he ended up with.  The subtle stuff (which is often what makes all the difference between good and great) almost always has to be captured in the field.  Flynn was "in the field" and it is only logical to believe that he made such changes when he was out there.  Otherwise, why would he have to worry about being on site so much.  He could just check in once in awhile and make sure everything was according to plan.  

I think he stayed close to his plans on paper but did refinements in the field as necessary.  I know he did this at Cherry Hills and other places as well because what was built is not exact to what was on his drawings.  

I would like to see an "as built" drawing from Flynn (dated after the opening of the golf course) and compare it to some of those "iteration drawings" he went through prior to construction.  That would be interesting to see.  
Mark

[Mike_Young]

Wayne,
I agree to disagree.  I have never seen a topo that is accurate enough to allow one to draw at a scale that would be acceptable for an original green.  An so I do not believe that any of the dead guys or living could create a drawing before construction that was placed in the field as drawn.  I also have never seen green perimeters built exactly to the measurements of the drawing.  I like Flynn's work as much if not more than most of the dead guys....but I have never related the quality of one's drawings to the quality of his finshed product.   Just as I may like a piece of pottery, if the potter had sketched it on paper I could care less.  I will always be of the opinion that the only drawings or notes that benefit a course's future changes are as-builts.  Reverting back to anything else is just a guess in my opinion.  

[wsmorrison]

Mark,

The courses were meant to be built exactly according to the drawings not the drawings made after the course was built to accurately show what was constructed.  I guess I should say the course was built "as drawn."

The changes at TCC, Pepper Pike were much more intricate than the Cherry Hills drawing.  Subtle changes to bunker shapes, fairway contours, etc.  I'll show you the drawings sometime.  I think you'll find it fascinating.

Mike,

I hear you and respect your opinion.  All this isn't about liking or disliking the design but rather the method of operations.  I think Flynn's was significantly different than his contemporaries and is part of my fascination of his work.  I believe Flynn drew exactly as he wanted a hole to be built.  For the most part they were very close.  We've measured Flynn's green drawings at a course like Rolling Green where there is little to no green loss.  The measurements are equivalent.  At the Cascades as well.  There are of course exceptions but it was his operational procedure for sure.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()