From Putting Greens to Green Complexes

[JMorgan]

A series of articles, entitled "The Making of a Putting Green," appeared in American Golfer in 1914-1915.  The opening paragraphs made me think about the appearance of the so-called "green complex" in golf course architecture and its impact on course design, construction, and cost ...

---------------------------------

Up to a period of fifty years ago, the putting green was (as far as grass is concerned) a part of the fair green, merely cropped rather shorter by the sheep -- which constituted the only lawn mowers used up to that time.

Putting greens were not especially planted or made. They were merely parts of the fair green selected because of their proper distance from the tees and because of the natural conformation of the ground at this point was suited to putting.

It was only after the invention of lawn mowers that the putting green began to be treated materially differently from the fair green.  And even today, at the old St. Andrews course in Scotland, many of the putting greens merge almost imperceptibly into the fair green.

Now, however, practically all over the world, when a new golf course is built, the putting greens are made as a separate element of the course, independent of the fair green. They are generally especially graded so as to have carefully designed slopes and convolutions to insure a pleasing variety in the contours of the greens and to demand more skill on the part of the golfer.

Very generally now, also, the putting green is sown with especial care -- a finer and more expensive grade of grass being used here than on the fair green.
--------------------------------

I.

So how did the introduction of the green complex change golf and golf architecture? 

And why was it introduced in the first place?

Did it make golf more difficult? fun? challenging?

Did it make golf course construction more expensive?

What architects led the transition from putting green to green complex? 

II.

Come up with a list of five (5) highly regarded courses and their architects, one with putting greens (A) and one with green complexes (B).   

How do they differ in character? 

How many would be classified as ideal?  As fun or quirky?  As extraordinarily tough or difficult?

Which list would you rather play, A or B?

[Tom_Doak]

JMorgan:

I'm not sure I understand all of your questions or even the distinction you are making.  Are "putting greens" by your definition just the ones laid out over natural terrain?  Not much of that even survives today, outside some of the ancient links, Garden City, and Walton Heath.

The change toward designed "green complexes" ushered in a new era and enabled courses to be built on different sorts of terrain.  The unintended consequence of that is that pretty much everybody forgot how to build a green on natural grade ... and USGA green construction really killed the idea.

[JMorgan]

JMorgan:
Are "putting greens" by your definition just the ones laid out over natural terrain?  Not much of that even survives today, outside some of the ancient links, Garden City, and Walton Heath.

Tom, the ones laid out in the manner Taylor describes in the second paragraph.

[JMorgan]

 The unintended consequence of that is that pretty much everybody forgot how to build a green on natural grade ... and USGA green construction really killed the idea.

 ... and one direction I hoped this thread would lead ...

[JMorgan]

I believe there are quite a few Braid and Park, Jr. and Old Tom courses that could be included in Column A.

[Ian Larson]

Not sure if this is completely relevant but I think Tom was touching on this...

Is the modern green complex a product of not having an area that drained well so the greens were being raised to give water a place to run off of and away from the green, and this higher elevated green gave opportunity to create steeper-flash-faced-greenside bunkers to protect it?

Or did this occur naturally at some old courses and the classic architects replicated it and understood this improved drainage issues around the green?

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:

Don't misunderstand me.  I love using natural contours in the golf course; I like to start with my greens at natural grade, and I avoid putting fill in the green site 95% of the time.  I pick green sites where most of the surface water is already going away from the green, and it's easy to direct the rest of it away.

But, in my entire career I've only built a couple of greens where we used the UNTOUCHED natural contours in one of our greens ... even on the very good green sites, usually we are tweaking it at least a little, where it's too steep in one area or too flat in another.

My point was that, over time, you just get used to always BUILDING a green as opposed to just letting one lay there, and eventually you pretty much stop looking to find one that just lays there.

And if you are going to build a USGA green, you can't just let it lay there, you have to well it out and reproduce the natural contours which is hard to do.

[TEPaul]

Like many things in golf the definition and dimensions and probably the ultmate "mentality" of a "putting green" seems to have evolved not just in the context of some golf architectural mentality or evolution but through the context of the Rules of Golf.

In the really old days there was no distinction in the Rules or probably actually between an area for putting and the rest of the area of play other than hazards.

Eventually, like the evolution of teeing areas, areas for putting were demarked by a number of club lengths from the hole. That eventually led to the common Rules definition of "twenty yards from the hole" and ultimately excluded any hazards within that dimension of the hole.

Believe it or not that basic definition in the Rules of Golf lasted until 1952 when the definition for the dimensions of a putting green was changed from within twenty yards of the hole to:

"All the ground of the hole being played which is specially prepared for putting or otherwise defined as such by the Committee."

Obviously, at that point the present mentality and dimensions of a putting green was locked in by the Rules definition, even if many putting greens in the few decades that preceded that 1952 definition were essentially conforming to that 1952 Rules definition in a Rules playing sense. So, in a way the architecture of the 20th century putting green was as much responsible for the Rules definition change as anything else! 

[Ian Larson]

Tom,

Im completely aware of your style and agree with it 100%.


TEPaul,

I think that was a great point and that has definetely got to be part of the evolution of the green complex.


My point was this. Starting with Tom's, of course the first architects would place greens where the natural contours were perfect for the green and the spot fit in well to the routing. But what if the property didnt drain well and they knew it could be a potential problem. Could this be where the raised green complex came about? Because lets face it, in America there are raised green complexes all over the country at the best clubs. And with the raised green complexes came the flashed greenside bunkers that fit well into those contours.

And as TEPaul stated, as the game evolved there became more of a need for distinction between the playing surfaces.

So could it be said that complexes like this came about as a function of drainage and the evolution of the game?

[TEPaul]

Ian:

I think greens or green complexes have evolved the way they have over the last 150 years for all kinds of reasons, and many of them being for one practical reason after another that means that perhaps noone really had that much idea or even vision at any particular point in time where it may all end up in the end (if we can say even we are at some end at this point, which I'm quite sure we aren't).

I've got to go away for about five days and I won't be online but when I get back I'll get on this thread again about what I think some of those various things and reasons were over the course of time for both how and why greens evolved as they did. I think most all the varied reasons are all pretty trackable if one understands history well and is honest with what really was going on at any particular time. Or perhaps I should more accurately say what wasn't going on at any particular point in time.

With questions and answers like these one, there was something I once heard from Joe Dey, of all people, on a question we were once discussing at length on Rules. What he said in the end of that conversation just keeps coming back to me on so many things like this thread:

"Tommy Paul, do you have any idea how rudimentary golf and everything about it once was and in the sweep of the history of golf that rudimentariness really wasn't that long ago."

When one begins to plug the numerous factors of what-all went in to ALL of this I think his point it remarkably prescient.

[Michael]

  Would this evolution in greens/green complexes also have been influenced by the changes in golf shot execution? from a ground style bump and run to a more precise air delivered shot?

Michael

[Ian Larson]

"Tommy Paul, do you have any idea how rudimentary golf and everything about it once was and in the sweep of the history of golf that rudimentariness really wasn't that long ago."


.....great point.