Will we ever see Maxwellian greens again?

[Mike_Cirba]

I recently had the pleasure of a very enjoyable weekend at Prairie Dunes, and my most vivid memory, other than the remarkably unique 8th hole, are of the incredibly varied and internally contoured greens.  They redefine the word "BOLD".

In fact, the first course I played since that weekend, which shall go unnamed, was by another Golden Age architect who is rightly well-regarded, but the greens seemed almost dead flat in comparison.  

With so much technological change in the game, architects and pundits wring their hands in an attempt to figure out how best to "defend par", or keep the game challenging at the highest levels.  Courses are extended to 7,300+ yards, fairways are tightened, water hazards are brought in closer, rough is grown deeper, greens are shaved to unhealthy agronomic lengths, and yet...the irony...besides the fact that we assiduously maintain hazards such as bunkers, is that greens are generally flatter to play reasonably at stimp speeds above 10.

Yet, Prairie Dunes stands as a severe challenge at a mere 6598 yards, to a par of 70.  Much of the reason for that is at the green-end.  

Words can't adequately describe the cleverness of what Maxwell wrought on those greens.  Probably the best analogy I can think of is the ocean at high tide.  So many different twists and turns, slopes that roll to and fro, and subtle flows that always seem to know what shot was hit well, versus a slightly indifferent approach, and penalize accordingly.

Yes, putting is a challenge, no doubt.  But, where these greens really, really shine is that they influence thinking and strategy all the way back to the tee.  

Take the 17th for example.  If the pin is in the lower front quadrant, this seemingly reachable par five of a mere 500 yards (although into a stiff prevailing wind) can lead to disaster very quickly.  One might think that they should try to get as close to the green as possible on the second shot, although the green sits up high on a precipice, with gnarly rough and bunkers left and a steep fall-off to the right.  That thinking would be wrong, however.  

Anything coming into that position that is less than accurate, well-struck, and full, is NOT going to come to rest in an advantageous position.  From 100 yards and in, a game of ping-pong to that pin is a likely result.  Instead, the smart play is to lay back for a full third, and then try to get somewhere reasonably close from there.

Sadly, I have to wonder if we'll ever see anything nearly as creative and daring in green design again.  The pressure that is put on architects and superintendents of our modern age to produce greens that are playable at intensely fast speeds seems to ensure that bold, interesting greens that get in your head from tee to green are largely a thing of the past.  

[CHrisB]

Perhaps it would be easier to do in hotter climates, where the green surfaces are usually thicker and slower (grainy bermuda).  Really, for those who get tired of slow, grainy greens, such bold "rolls" are about the only way to get some speed in them.

The first green at Prairie Dunes is a personal favorite--it grabs you right out of the box and sends a very clear message that just being on the green is not enough!

[RJ_Daley]

Mike, I haven't seen any significant body of work by Maxwell other than that which was a collaboration with MacKenzie or somewhat attributed to Maxwell at Crystal Downs.  There, the green I am led to believe was mostly the trademark of Maxwell is #6.  I would characterise it as a double dip or dual roll of a hogsback moving through the green mostly front to back but also somewhat on diagonals.  But, I have seen more pronounced humps and rolls in other archie designs.  I would say the ones by Max that I have seen are certainly bold but not extreem.  It seems more a matter of 'how' the rolls move through the green.  

Having said all of that, would you agree that the "Maxwell Rolls" are not about being extreme so much as being bold and on interesting angles though the green area taking into account possible approach strategy?  Unfortunately, I didn't get to see the Women's Open this year since I was out of the country.  Did the greens present obvious challenge and interest, even on TV?

[Mike_Cirba]

RJ;

You bring up a great point, that is tough for me to describe adequately.

It's NOT so much the the greens have 4 foot slopes running from one area of the green to the other, or the steep sections that were used by modern architects like RTJ Sr., on large greens to create different sections.

Instead, one stands on a Maxwell green and is astounded at the variety and complexity of everything going on around you.  There is no "rubber stamped" green design #236 out of a CADD drawing on a computer.  Instead, there are changes of pace and direction within little 8 foot sections, where a putt might be uphill and breaking slightly left from one spot, and flat and breaking sharply right from 4 feet away.  Remarkable detail, really, and I can't think of a course I've played where there are so many potential three-putts on greens that average around 5,000 square feet.

Unfortunately, I didn't get to watch much of the Women's Open on television either, but I do know one thing, for certain..  They were VERY fortunate that the weather was calm all four days, because we played in winds over three days that were minimally 15mph, and maximally gusting to 40mph.  

[TEPaul]

I've seen greens that are as daring and bold as Maxwell's, probably more so, but there surely is something extra special about his. The way the internal contours mix and weave throughout his greens is just as beautiful to look at as play. I've never seen a Maxwell green that came even remotely close to being overdone in either shape, slope or internal contour!

In my mind, Perry Maxwell was the greatest green builder ever.

[Lynn Shackelford]

I agree with Tom Paul, he might have been the best ever at designing greens.  Sometimes I think of Robert Trent Jones Sr. and some of his courses in Southern Calif., Valencia CC in particular and I think he tried to imitate Maxwell greens.  It didn't quite work.  Is it the 15th(?) at Cuscowilla which is very mounded and Coore's attempt at a Maxwell green.  It almost works but isn't quite as good as a Maxwell green.  Outside of Prairie Dunes the best Maxwell greens I have seen are the 2nd at Crystal Downs and the 10th at Gulph Mills.  Proof that he was so brilliant and cannot be duplicated, Press with the inspiration of Prairie Dunes built 9 very good greens but nothing better than the Dad's 9.

[Pete_Pittock]

       Maxwell was the master. Another architect to consider was H Chandler Egan, with , Portland, Oswego Lake, Rogue Valley and Tualatin to his credit, and revisions at Pebble Beach and Waverley. Some of the best contours I've encountered, fortunately when my putting stroke was sound.
        You need a client who isn't enamored with the stimp meter.

[David Wigler]

Mike,

My experience with Maxwell Greens is limited to U of M, Scarlet, Praire Dunes, and Southern Hills.  With those four as the sampling, he is #1 with a gap.  Tom Doak is getting better each year though and Gil Hanse and Mike Devries get it.  Who knows, maybe the next Maxwell green genius is a GCA'er.

[Gene Greco]

The greens at Friar's Head all seem to have great movement in the Perry Maxwell style.

I believe Bill Coore has recreated more of the Maxwellian style of green constuction at Friar's Head than he has at all his other previous efforts.

[angie]

your description of 17 reminded me of michael fay's description of "calamity" at royal portrush.  i dream of playing some of the uk courses before my time is up.  i'm most struck by carnoustie, and figure i would really be "struck" by it if i ever did get to play! there is something about good big tough really demanding greens that takes golf up one order of magnitude. i know i'm carrying coals to newcastle with a remark like that to the readers - not saying anything the rest don't fully know, but reaffirming!

[Gary_Nelson]

I'm still not convinced that bold contoured greens are the way to deal with improvements in club/ball technology.  Players like Corey Pavin will be further handicapped against the field if the overall yardage doesn't come down.  IMO, a long hitter with a short iron into a BOLD green will have much greater success than a player hitting a mid-iron (or more).

Severe contours would equalize the players only when the course is short enough for everyone to be hitting a similar (short iron) club on their approach to the green.

This week's Buick Open can be won by just about everyone in the field.  For the PGA players, it's a short course with easy greens.  You've got 100 potential winners (whoever goes on the biggest birdie binge) instead of just a guy named Tiger.

Just my opinion... I could be wrong.

Gary

[Chris_Clouser]

I think we will see greens along those lines again.  Maxwell didn't just get to that level of design at Crystal Downs, Prairie Dunes, Southern Hills or Old Town overnight.  He literally fine tuned his craft over about 15 years before Crystal Downs.  You can even see this in his early work.  The change in detail of the greens from Dornick or Twin Hills to the course at Oklahoma City was amazing.  Much more variety and use of different types of undulations within the green surfaces.  

So people like Doak and Coore along with lesser knowns like Tripp Davis and Jerry Slack are working their way to it, but it takes time to develop that skill through years of work and dedication.  The key isn't the big sweeping undulations.  It's the smaller more subtle undulations that just really tie it all together like a web.  The little undulations are almost like someone pushed up little spots in the green with an air hose from below and these are often the part that begin to push shots to the large shifts such as the swales and ridges which then make putting those greens the supreme challenge.  

Greens today are pretty much either somewhat flat or have large elevation changes in them.  Very few have the subtle breaks accompanied with the elevations changes.  This is what provides the challenge on courses like Southern Hills and PD and still make them a challenge for the best players.  Even Jack Nicklaus never shot better than par at PD and the primary reason was the green designs.  With greens like those you don't have to have 7000 yard courses.  Adding length is the easy way to make a course more challenging.  Making greens that reward only the finest with good scoring chances are the hard part.  That's also why mechanical golfers like Annika usually lose out to people like Juli Inkster on Maxwell courses.  

[TEPaul]

I may be wrong about this but I hope not because we're about to redo a green that was once Maxwell at our course (actually this particular time I'm afraid Perry made a bit of a conceptual mistake on this original redesigned green--but that's another story!) which was redesigned into a bit of a mundane affair later by someone else.

But my take on what Perry did and how to basically copy him and catch the essence of what he did goes something like this;

You have to visualize in real detail (probably over and over again preconstruction) what exactly you're trying to get any golfer to think and do approaching and playing on and around a Perry green (how the ball will react anywhere and everywhere).

After you've done that you have to get on the ground exactly all that you're visualizing is going to happen and work as well  as you've visualize it and then--and I think this might be the real key to Perry greens--you should probably begin to tone everything down, down, down, just to that exact point where all that you're trying to do is at the exact point where if the green is toned down anymore it will start to lose the concept and the desired playability!

I think it's that exact point (that toning down to the point the concept would start to minimize but doesn't) that Perry caught time and time again on his greens and is the real reason none of them got over the top (or even looked like it) but still had those "Maxwell Rolls" working exciting but playable (even more amazingly as they evolved to higher speeds later).

Of course the way Perry got those mixing and weaving contours ("poofs" or whatever) throughout his greens with many little unpinnable areas in such a way that they all "transitioned" the ball beautifully to all the other little "pinnable" areas and quadrants is what his green are all about. And I think in the process of toning everything down to that all important point was also much of what made all his contours and such, natural and beautiful to look at.

We're also lucky at GMGC that we have four other Maxwell greens and it really isn't that difficult to pick out some of the movements in those four and reuse those movements in differing ways by flipping them around and such so no one would ever notice that they were reused.

But I think the key is really catching the visualized concepts and getting it on the ground and then toning down, toning down (broading out, whatever) until it all still works great (for the ball) but is right at that all important point where it might start to lose those playabilities if you toned down even one more smidgeon.

I think that's the key and the subtlty to Perry Maxwell greens--I hope so anyway.

[brad_miller]

Mike, great thread, Chris your second paragraph is sensational, and Tom I think you are on to something. In fact Press's greens seem to be Perry's pushed down and adding about 10-25% more surface area. Still think Press's 9 greens at PD could be one of the best sets built since WW2.

Gene, think your right, there is lots going on at C&C's new east end course, might be the best set of modern greens around, still on average they are much bigger than any at PD.

[GeoffreyC]

The greens at Prairie Dunes were unique to me due to the complexity that was packed into such small surfaces.  A place like Pine Valley has those types of features but the greens are sooo much larger.

I agree with Chris about the first green.  It really sets the stage and its part of the reason I listed it among the greatest opening holes in golf.

Are the greens at Friar's Head USGA spec (or Inniscrone, Apache Stronghold, Rustic Canyon)? The reason I ask is because I'd like to know from architects and those in the business if they think that USGA spec greens can EVER be built to mimic the greens at Prairie Dunes?  Do they have to be pushup greens to integrate such complex features?

[3-Putt]

The greens at Friar's Head all seem to have great movement in the Perry Maxwell style.

I believe Bill Coore has recreated more of the Maxwellian style of green constuction at Friar's Head than he has at all his other previous efforts.

As someone who has played Friar's Head a number of times, all I can say is that the golf course has the finest set of green complexes that I have ever seen.  If that statement is too over-the-top than let me say that of all the modern courses I have played, FH is in a league of its own.  Key greens, in my mind, are #1, #2, #5, #7, #8, #9, #10 - one of the best 3-pars in the world - #13, #14, #16, etc....

Unlike many other modern designs, the optionality at FH is incredible - LW, SW, 9-iron, 5-iron, heck you can use any club in the bag around those babies!  Very seldom is your shot dictated by your lie / position left to the pin.  Coore and Crenshaw have, in my mind, created the ultimate challenge: it's as if the architect is saying to the player, "you pick and club you want and I'll still make it fun and interesting for you in an effort to save par..."

Everyone that I have taken to FH (players of all abilities) has said that the greens are unbelieveable - but very fair.  What a great challenge and what a great test of golf.  Nice to see that an architect can build greens that are more memorable for their rolls and pitch than for their "lightning fast" speed.

 

[TEPaul]

Geoffrey:

You don't HAVE to do pushups to construct those kinds of intricate contours that are Maxwellian, you could probably do USGA spec with those contours but as explained by Coore it would be a tremendous amount of work with USGA spec vs pushups simply because of the need to match almost exactly the subsurface contour on USGA spec with the surface contour. The more intricate you get on the surface contouring the harder it is to match the subsurface! It's all about drainage and creating drainage problems if they don't match exactly.

Those you mentioned I'm aware are Friar's, Rustic, Easthampton, Hidden are either pushup or a modified version of pushup primarily because the basically sandy soil can handle them.

Maxwell surely is the master of the small green and the intricate internal contour even at Pine Valley! #8 is a Maxwell and it's only 2977sf! and it's one helluva interesting and beautiful green in every way! It doesn't have to be small to be interesting Maxwell, though, as the next hole, #9's left green is also a Maxwell at 6316sf.

[RJ_Daley]

Geoff,  I'm glad you are taking his discussion to that question of the actual greens construction method utilized by Max.  While there wasn't a USGA method prescribed in Max's day, there were various construction methods that varied from site to site considering the soils and ammendments they had at their disposal.  I know we have knowledgeable guys looking in, like Bruce Hepner and the Rennaisance guys who really study that sort of thing.  (Not like Hepner would ever break a fingernail actually typing up something   )  But, If one of these restoration artists like Forse or Silva or anyone else could make some comments on what they know of the greens construction method that Max used at any particular course, I think it would be insightful.  Particularly if it is known that the 'poofs' or 'Maxwell Rolls' were more likely to be designed in certain push-up soil-sand mixes, and did he use terracotta tiles or some other drainage features like a gridiron to move water subsurface considering all the pockets of those "poofs"?

   by the timing of the posts, I see above that Tom Paul has thought the same thing, but he is a much faster typist  

[A_Clay_Man]

Mike- I see them everyday here at Pinon Hills. They are alive and well and have exactly what you describe. Mostly a thrown out the mold concept, where two are never the same cept for the rolls.

I wonder if the major cause for thier scarcity is the standardization and playability influences, which have plagued the architectural landscape for some 50 years.

[corey miller]

I had a conversation with a knowlegable cga poster about the greens at PD and why regardless of contour the modern architect is never really able to pull it off naturally and one of the answers was the use of USGA spec greens and how that ties into the surrounds.  

can someone comment on USGA spec greens or is there a place I can go to learn more. thanks.

[corey miller]

A clay man-are the greens at pinion linked with the surrounds in any way or are they just neat putting surfaces.  I ask because Ken Dye built a pretty neat practice area at my course with a nicely contoured fun green but there is little if no link to the natural surrounds of the area.

[TEPaul]

3-putt:

I agree about Friar's greens although I haven't played the course. But looking at them with Coore and Bakst and discussing them sort of blew me away too. One in particular, #7, generally front left has a feature that I think is unbelievably original and creative architecturally!

Before it was explained to me I thought there's no real way to get a ball from the front right to the front left without basically having the ball go off the green. I've seen a lot of good and creative greens in my life and I'm a pretty good and imaginative putter but to me that front section looked like a total "greens within a green" deal which to me is basically there really isn't much way to get from here to there without an expected 3 putt.

Then Bakst showed me how you do it! Man, I never would have seen the way to do it! That is not only one of the best and most interesting greens but those two juxtaposed front sections are about as creative as I've seen anywhere. There's a way but you almost have to be told what it is.

It's not that much different than the Zorro or modified Zorro putt on PVGC's #2. I thought I was in an impossible positon on that green not long ago for a right front pin but the caddie told me how to do the modified Zorro putt. I'd heard about it but I'd never tried it or saw it done! My first reaction to his advice was sort of; "yeah right!", but since I couldn't see any other way I tried it and it went in for a birdie to win an overtime match. It had to have been the weirdest and most fun putt I ever tried and it was by no means short.

I don't know how much break I played maybe 35+ feet but the caddie was holding the pin and when the ball came rocketing off the high right bank and down the hill he pulled the flag when it was about 20ft away and said; "you got it!!" The ball went into the hole like a freight train and if it hadn't I would've been pulling some kind of wedge from well off the front of the green.

Friar's has a number of greens sort of like that I think!

[RJ_Daley]

Corey,

http://www.tiftonsoillab.com/html/3.html

also USGA.org, but that site isn't working this morning...

[TEPaul]

Of course the obvious question is why do the surface and subsurface contours on USGA spec greens really have to match so exactly. The answer, as explained to me is because although we might think water drains straight down it doesn't. Water drains very much sideways and if those subsurface and surface contours don't match exactly on USGA spec greens it can cause all kinds of drainage problems, pockets of wettness etc that create all kinds of problems on the green surface.

Coore said he could do USGA specs with those kinds of intricate contours but it's a ton more work in matching the sub and surface contours and if something goes wrong in the future most of the time it gets blamed on the super.

Coore started out as a super and he said the question of what kind to do he likes to leave up to the super.

[3-Putt]

3-putt:

I agree about Friar's greens although I haven't played the course. But looking at them with Coore and Bakst and discussing them sort of blew me away too. One in particular, #7, generally front left has a feature that I think is unbelievably original and creative architecturally!

Before it was explained to me I thought there's no real way to get a ball from the front right to the front left without basically having the ball go off the green. I've seen a lot of good and creative greens in my life and I'm a pretty good and imaginative putter but to me that front section looked like a total "greens within a green" deal which to me is basically there really isn't much way to get from here to there without an expected 3 putt.

Then Bakst showed me how you do it! Man, I never would have seen the way to do it! That is not only one of the best and most interesting greens but those two juxtaposed front sections are about as creative as I've seen anywhere. There's a way but you almost have to be told what it is.

It's not that much different than the Zorro or modified Zorro putt on PVGC's #2. I thought I was in an impossible positon on that green not long ago for a right front pin but the caddie told me how to do the modified Zorro putt. I'd heard about it but I'd never tried it or saw it done! My first reaction to his advice was sort of; "yeah right!", but since I couldn't see any other way I tried it and it went in for a birdie to win an overtime match. It had to have been the weirdest and most fun putt I ever tried and it was by no means short.

I don't know how much break I played maybe 35+ feet but the caddie was holding the pin and when the ball came rocketing off the high right bank and down the hill he pulled the flag when it was about 20ft away and said; "you got it!!" The ball went into the hole like a freight train and if it hadn't I would've been pulling some kind of wedge from well off the front of the green.

Friar's has a number of greens sort of like that I think!

TEPaul -
Hell of a putt!  Hopefully, we can play FH together one day.  By the way, nothing but 3-putts for me on #7 so far...

All good things to you.