[Adam_F_Collins]

It seems to me that most courses tend to have greens of similar character throughout. Perhaps it is due to the maintenance considerations for a given type of green construction. Courses generally seem to have "contoured" greens, or "flat" greens, or "subtle" greens, "small" or "large" greens.

What are some examples of courses where the character of the greens varies a great deal throughout? Do we know of courses with a huge, roller-coaster on one hole, followed by one almost dead flat and mid-sized, then a tiny little sloped green - that kind of thing?

It seems that, if one were trying to marry the course to the natural landscape, that a variety of greens would play a major role in that marriage.

[JESII]

I can say that the variety at Pine Valley is as great as anywhere I've been (never played TOC), but there is not a flat spot in the lot. There is a pretty wide range of sizes, and a real variety of designs and contours, but nothing close to flat.

[David_Madison]

Old Town in Winston Salem, NC has the most varied set of greens complexes I've ever seen. It's a Perry Maxwell design from the 1930's. Greens range from tiny to huge, are all different shapes, and have a great variety of slope configurations and severity. IMHO they are the best set of greens and greens complexes in the state, and that includes Pinehurst #2.

[TEPaul]

I note what JESII said about the greens of PVGC, and although I think PV has greens that taken together are some of the best in the world in my opinion, I wouldn't say PV is the greatest in variety.

The course whose greens tops all I've ever seen for huge variety is NGLA without question---and the interesting thing is there's nothing formulaic about some of them due to something like the length of the hole. Some of the longer holes have some of the wilder greens and a few of the short holes have really large and fairly mild greens.

C.B Macdonald mixed up his greens at NGLA and created the greatest variety in green types, sizes and contouring of any course I've ever seen.

[Tom_Doak]

I would agree with Tom.  National is about the only course I can think of which has some of the wildest greens in golf, and at the same time has a few which are very flat and nondescript.  I always wonder if someone took the undulations out of greens like the 14th.

MacKenzie might throw in a bowl-shaped green for variety but hardly ever a flat one.

[Adam_F_Collins]

Would you say that such variety of character in greens on one course is undesirable?

Why don't we see more variation of green character within individual courses?

[Patrick_Mucci]

AFC,

I'd add Westhampton and Forsgate to the mix.

Perhaps Hollywood and Hidden Creek as well.

[Jimmy Muratt]

One of my favorite courses and one that has a terrific set of greens is Fenway Golf Club.  There is a great deal of variety and size amongst them.  The green on the great par 5 3rd hole is wonderful, I could just hang around that green and play different shots all day.  There are numerous options on almost any approach or chip to access the various hole locations.

The brilliant short par 4 13th culminates with a very narrow and small green.  It's hard to play conservatively with a short pitch approach, but this hole forces you to make that "do or die" decision.

In contrast to the tiny green at #13, the green at #18 is enormous.  It is over 60 yards deep and can make approaches visually difficult.  

Fenway is just a wonderful course that is a joy to play.  It may not be as demanding as some of it's neighbors, but it very well could be the most fun.

[Mark Brown]

Cuscowilla has quite a variety including some very good and creative small greens, which seems to be rare with most new courses.

[Mark Brown]

You have to include most of Strantz's courses like Royal New Kent and Tobacco Road (which is in my top 100 modern). If Cruden Bay can be quirky and ranked, why not Tobacco Road.

There's a double standard. Anything goes across the pond, but here in the buttoned-up U.S. it must be more conventional.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have always felt that most courses have greens too similar rather than too different.

It takes hard work and thought to break the mold (of your own making, of course) and do different greens.  Sadly, many greens are designed on autopilot.

You have to first think in terms of concept - almost pre-deciding you are going to have an ultra small and ultra large green, for example.  Or greens of different shapes. Or a Biaritz or Stitwell Park or Maxwell roll green.

In grading, you have to almost consciously decide that one green will have basic slopes of 1.5% while the next will have 3%, etc.

As you suggest, using the natural landscape helps suggest greens of different nature.  Certainly, a steep cross slope leads to a narrow green for reasons of construction practicality, for instance, while a large open area might suggest a large rolling green.

[Adam_F_Collins]

It just seems to me that far too many architects equate 'consistency' with 'monotony'.

It's so rare to find a course memorable because of the greens - it's usually the view off the tee, or the bunkers around the green - but so rarely the variety of shapes, contrasting characters or demands of individual greens. I'm sure that it is a more difficult aspect to accentuate, but I'd like to see more of it.

I find that if greens are memorable at all, it's in their entirety - over the whole course - like a single entity. "The greens were so fast" or "the greens had crazy contours" or "the greens where small and flat".

I'd like to find myself thinking, "Man that second green was so narrow - tough to hit", or "The tenth green was like a friggin' rollercoaster", or the eighteenth was the biggest green I've ever seen"

Possible? Doable? Desirable?

[TEPaul]

Adam:

Perhaps one of the obstacles to creating greens today that are of a really wide variety is this unfortunate term or perception known as "out of character".

Even though I don't like that term I certainly understand what it means but I think it can be somewhat dangerous too in the area of variety.

I have no doubt that if a few of the greens that were built by Macdonald were built later by someone else the very same greens might be labeled "out of character".

[Adam_F_Collins]

Tom Paul,

It would be much more difficult to call a green "out of character" if they were all really unique from one hole to the next in the first place.

If 16 greens are similar in character and two are in contrast - then you get greens which are "out of character", but if the green vary in character with the landscape and the character of each hole - then you get "variety".

[Mark Brown]

Jeff, I read your article in GCN yesterday.

I'm not wild about greens within greens unless the contours are modest and two-putts are very possible. In a way they may be an easy way out to try to create interest rather than being creative with your shaping.

I despise two-foot, two-tiered greens front to back as it is very hard to hit it close and very hard to judge distance from the lower tier to the higher.

Overall, I think greens have gotten too big. We need to mix in some creative small greens

In addition, with large "greens within greens" I find it harder to focus, aim and hit the ball close to the hole because there's usually less definition

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()