C&C and internal green contours...

[Jason Topp]

On the general topic of green contours, Jeff's courses in Northen Minnesota provide an excellent study.

Giant's Ridge Legends - relatively normal contours for a resort course.

Giant's Ridge Quarry - much more movement and interest on the greens

Wilderness at Fortune Bay - wild contours.

As a resort course, I like the Quarry's greens the best.  I will never play any of these courses enough to get to know them well so there is a real element of luck approaching and putting such greens when you are not familiar.

By contrast, my club has many severe and subtle breaks on the greens that would take a lifetime to learn.  I am reminded of this when I take guests there and watch them line up in completely the wrong direction time after time.  It is great fun learning more about each green each time I play.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Kirk,

Actually, the running or driving hook was in my repertoire.

The two hand set shot was going out of style, was easily blocked and looked "girlish".  I liked the jump shot since I could get it over any attempts to block it.
I had a heavy electrical wire leading from my house to the right side of garage, where the backboard was centered in the middle, thus I learned to alter my arc to get over it.

It taught me how to alter trajectory depending upon the distance from the basket and height and reach of the defender.

I do miss basketball.
My goal was to play full court in a league until I reached age 65, but some irrational, alarmist cardiologist put an end to my dream.

On the other hand, I broke my right wrist in 1985 and my putting has never been the same.

[Dan Kelly]

I will never play any of these courses enough to get to know them well so there is a real element of luck approaching and putting such greens when you are not familiar.

By contrast, my club has many severe and subtle breaks on the greens that would take a lifetime to learn.  I am reminded of this when I take guests there and watch them line up in completely the wrong direction time after time.  It is great fun learning more about each green each time I play.

Jason --

I'm not understanding the "contrast" -- except in your familiarity with the greens in question!

Isn't it true, don't you think, that *all* really interesting greens take a lifetime to learn?

Dan

[John Kavanaugh]

JK, I aim to please.  Below are a series of photos of the greatest punchbowl I have seen, and I actually see similarities to the forground hollows in the top desert pic.  As for St. Louis cc, I don't know.  

approach:


Scanning left to right through the green complex



back left side


internal contours!


Obviously, there is nothing natural about this punchbowl.  The internal contour is a ridge throught the middle of the green in a Maxwellian roll style that old Perry Duke would have loved.  
Do you see this as the anti-C&C method.  Do you think this looks like it was out of a Sahara desert setting like the photo above?  (I see the setting as similar to the photo)  Is the roll through the middle too randomly random?

All I can say is this is one of the most exciting holes you will find anywhere, or you don't have a pulse!  The internal contour is the frosting on the cake.

Funny thing that on one hand you say these pics look like the sand dunes but on the other say they don't look natural.  I see many of my favorite forms found in nature in the above pics...it's when architects add cellulite to the curves that I begin to turn away..

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Dan Kelly,

People are so ready to go off the handle, they don't even read a post before disagreeing with it.

Jeff,

Don't assume too much Jeff.  I was just being nice to Dan.  Your pontificating and wrapping yourself in a cloak of real world, self congratulatory praises for being one of the many modern guys that gets it is tedious and not believeable.  You sound more like a talking textbook, yes with formulas!

[Don_Mahaffey]

Jeff Brauer wrote:
"Thus, a well thought out rational for why I and most other modern GCA types prefer long flowing contours as opposed to some busy little (or in the case of Maxwell, busy big) contours in the middle of the greens"

While most modern GCA types might prefer long flowing contours, I'm not in that camp. In fact, when I see a site, for instance a desert site, that has a lot of natural erosion from the elements and then see a course built on that site where every thing is long, flowing, and smoothed out...it makes me want to puke. When I see everything long and flowing...and then the guy adds hairy bunkers...I do puke.
I feel like the archies idea was to pile a little dirt around and drag the world's biggest I-beam over it until every little bump was smoothed out. Long and flowing is certainly more popular, but I'll take short, abrupt, and choppy most of the time...even if it is harder to build and a bit more challenging to maintain.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

Like GCA's, I think golf supers fit a bell curve, with a small percentage willing to maintain just about anything, another small percentage wanting everything designed more for maintenance and most somewhere in between, usually influenced by the budget they think or know that they will get from the Owner.  It is always a pleasure to work with one like you who appreciates design and is willing to find a way to make those things work.  Certainly, having the superintendent on the job during design (which we recommend) does influence the design, including whether to include signifigant internal contours on the green.

It seems you extended this topic to include fw grading and juxtaposition of certain types of fw grading to different style of bunkers.  I agree that, generally, (WARNING to KBM - Formula Approaching) that on steeper and rugged sites, the through the green grading should reflect that. I think I clarified that I was talking about gently rolling sites in my long post.  It was somewhere in the middle of it......I can't believe you missed that!

Kelly,

So I take it you aren't putting my post up for the Pullitzer this year?  I can't believe that either!  As you know, we have been exposed to the TEPaul writing and editing for brevity shcool of writing and I thought that was the current fave of those award types.....

BTW, in posting that about green contours, and going on at length about the virtues of a green design concept that is contrary to "conventional wisdom" of this site, I had no idea that I was portraying myself as one who "gets it."  I figured there were probably 1499 gca readers worldwide saying just the opposite.

And, while being contrary, I would appreciate good golfers and other gca reading the back end of the post to discuss not personalities, or insults, but a golf architectural idea that maybe small bumps on a green may not be the universally good thing some think they are.

Based on your real world experience, do you avoid steep slopes, mounds in greens, or other features when designing a $45 public course?  And if so (or not) why?

Overall, I thought there was nothing so unreasonable in my first response to Barney about tailoring a design to the Owners percieved needs...........

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Based on your real world experience, do you avoid steep slopes, mounds in greens, or other features when designing a $45 public course?  And if so (or not) why?

Overall, I thought there was nothing so unreasonable in my first response to Barney about tailoring a design to the Owners percieved needs...........

Regarding your first paragraph quoted above you're kidding, right??   I've had one GCA on here say the public will not play it, and a prominent golf writer in the Philadelphia Inquirer totally panned the course, so in my real world I actually count those as positives!

I think if you tailor a design to an Owner's preceived needs, I mean literally allow your deign program to be dictated largely by the "preceived" owners needs then you have failed, you might as well mail in the plans and go into another line of work.  

[TEPaul]

"I hate em...what do you think..and why..
"They are not natural and slow down play.. "

John K:

I think you should forget about golf and take up jogging---even if you to do it with a golf club in your hand.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kelley,

I don't quite follow your message. Do I presume you are speaking of your own Morgan Hill course?

I admire your principles, but I have never been so stuck on building a golf course one way that I couldn't bend a bit.  As I once said at a golf conference, I may get more stubborn when the last kid is out of college.   So, call me a commerical sell out.  And say that you may be more likely to get the next great site on principles.  Somehow, I believe I have stumbled my way to at least a few pretty good course designs, and do know that was because I got direction to do so or no directions at all.

I also have some mundane to pretty good public courses on my track record that both please me, follow owners directives, and got me some subsequent work down the line.

not, as Seinfeld would say, that there is anything wrong with that!

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Jeff,

It has nothing to do with being stubborn or principled.  It's a golf course and its a piece of land.  What results should say everything about the architect, not the "preceived" needs of the owner.  I think that is less a sermon and more just a simple belief.  

Back to the original statement that started this thread which Tom Paul justed reminded us, the premise upon which John started this thread is absurd, particularly the slow down play part.  At first I didn't think you could even repsond to it but leave it to Tom Paul to find the right words.  

[TEPaul]

JeffB and Kelly:

Regarding your discussion (or is it a debate?) about whether a golf architect should be dictated to by his clent as to what he builds--I sure can't offer a cogent or general answer for that. All I can offer is that dilemma is something like the age old adage about the politician;

"Does he lead his constituency or does he follow them?"

As some may know the philosophy of "elitism" attempted to answer that question one way but constant polling attempts to answer it another way.

[TEPaul]

JEffB and Kelly:

As to my known verbosity---please tell me you're impressed with my new-found brevity on this thread.

[Dan Kelly]

Dan Kelly,

People are so ready to go off the handle, they don't even read a post before disagreeing with it.

Jeff,

Don't assume too much Jeff.  I was just being nice to Dan.  Your pontificating and wrapping yourself in a cloak of real world, self congratulatory praises for being one of the many modern guys that gets it is tedious and not believeable.  You sound more like a talking textbook, yes with formulas!

KBM -- There's absolutely no need to be nice to me. Thanks. Dan

[John Kavanaugh]

Back to the original statement that started this thread which Tom Paul justed reminded us, the premise upon which John started this thread is absurd, particularly the slow down play part.  At first I didn't think you could even repsond to it but leave it to Tom Paul to find the right words.  

KBM,

The idea that cottage cheese greens slow down play is not even original to me..I stole the idea from your biggest fan, BillV..so it must be true.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

What are cottage cheese greens?  There is so much that factors into pace of play beyond just design features.

Why can't I be nice to you Dan?

Oh, great job on the brevity Tom...and your concise statements are gems.  It must be the farm fresh air.

[Dan Kelly]

Kelly,

So I take it you aren't putting my post up for the Pullitzer this year?  I can't believe that either!  As you know, we have been exposed to the TEPaul writing and editing for brevity shcool of writing and I thought that was the current fave of those award types.....

Jeff --

If you'd included a long screed against the Bush Administration, you might have had a shot!

Maybe next year.

Dan

[Jeff_Brauer]

JEffB and Kelly:

As to my known verbosity---please tell me you're impressed with my new-found brevity on this thread.

Tom,

Well I am impressed. I actually think I felt the world wobble on its axis..............

Kelly,

As you know, other than my one time a year free pass to insult others on this board, I like to speak directly to issues.

I discount the "master builder" theory.  Hell, even the Master Builders like Wright discounted the master builder theory. They built structures, as FLW liked to say, with 'form following function."  

In most cases, the actual green contours are as much a choice of the designer as Wright picking an Asian theme for ornamentation.  If a designer is doing a public course and makes it overly tough, or a low budget course and purposely selects features that cannot be maintained, then form doesn't follow function, IHMO.

Say what you want, but part of my mantra is that I do more for golf when building a fairly unassuming course that is better than someone ever thought it could be than to build an award winning course for a large budget. To me, both are good projects and exciting design challenges.

[John Kavanaugh]

What are cottage cheese greens?  There is so much that factors into pace of play beyond just design features.

Why can't I be nice to you Dan?

Cottage cheese greens are the ones with random humps and bumps that have no relationship to the bowl in which they are served.  I don't see how you can argue with my thought that the more complicated a green is to read the slower the play will be...I really see no reason for the novice player to ever need to walk a putt surveying multiple breaks...It is a waste of my time and theirs..You just can't read an obtuse bump from behind the ball.

[TEPaul]

Also, when it comes to a client, architect, or anyone else categorically stating they know precisely what "the golfer" will accept and what he won't accept in golf course architecture----is that really a sensible thing to assume or to state??

Tom Fazio basically made that statement in his own book---eg essentially he mentioned a number of things regarding golf course architecture which HE KNEW golfers today will simply not accept.

Tom Fazio is a famous and successful golf architect but does even he really know what golfers won't accept? I doubt it.

Look fellas, I have real respect for you guys who are in the business and are "artists". I have respect for you because you put your stuff out there and you know that leaves any and all of you open to 10,001 opinions, criticisms etc no matter what you do. I think that's the way golf and architecture is---it's inevitable.

I think you have a lot of guts to put your artistic feelings and sensibilities on the line like that every day. There're probably a lot of people who would like to do what you guys do, even in a Walter Mitty sense, but even if they had the opportunity couldn't do it because they simply couldn't take the assault on their ego.

Imagine an architect like Alister MacKenzie who apparently actually enjoyed inspiring controversy in what he did architecturally. That's amazing----eg a real strong and secure character he must have been---a leader and definitely not content to be a constant follower of perceived general opinion because he was over-worried about what someone might not like.

[Dan Kelly]

Also, when it comes to a client, architect, or anyone else categorically stating they know precisely what "the golfer" will accept and what he won't accept in golf course architecture----is that really a sensible thing to assume or to state??

Tom Fazio basically made that statement in his own book---eg essentially he mentioned a number of things regarding golf course architecture which golfers today will simply not accept.

Tom Fazio is a famous and successful golf architect but does even he really know what golfers won't accept? I doubt it.

Look fellas, I have real respect for you guys who are in the business and are "artists". I have respect for you because you put your stuff out there and you know that leaves any and all of you open to 10,001 opinions, criticisms etc no matter what you do. I think that's the way golf and architecture is---it's inevitable.

I think you have a lot of guts to put your artistic feelings and sensibilities on the line like that every day. There're probably a lot of people who would like to do what you guys do but even if they had the opportunity couldn't do it because they simply couldn't take the assault on their ego.

Imagine an architect like Alister MacKenzie who apparently actually enjoyed inspiring controversy in what he did architecturally. That's amazing----eg a real strong and secure character he must have been---a leader and definitely not content to be a constant follower of perceived general opinion because he was over-worried about what someone might not like.

Tom I --

In the immortal (and succinct!) words of the most recent late president:

There you go again!

Dan Kelly (tm)

[John Kavanaugh]

If you had to make a hundred foot of putts on both Bandon Dunes and Bandon Trails which would obviously be done quicker....Bandon Dunes..real word, real example..case closed.

[TEPaul]

John K:

Thanks for that real word, real example, cased closed remark. To me that sounds like the greens of Bandon Trails might be more fun and challenging to both approach and putt.

[John Kavanaugh]

John K:

Thanks for that real word, real example, cased closed remark. To me that sounds like the greens of Bandon Trails might be more fun and challenging to both approach and putt.

That goes without saying...at least in theory.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

If you had to make a hundred foot of putts on both Bandon Dunes and Bandon Trails which would obviously be done quicker....Bandon Dunes..real word, real example..case closed.

And that's what golf is all about

Thanks for the reality check John.