In Jay Flemma’s thread on my work, I mention mounding as some of the characteristics of much of my work and Adam Clayman asks why green backing mounds are so vilified. It’s a good question, and it came up in one of my conversations with a good player the other day.
Basically, I used mounds a lot (although I am no longer a mound-a-holic having completed a 12 step program) There were the typical signs I was an addicted user…..A contractor told me he didn’t list me on his references after Art Hills refused to hire him, saying he had built “too many (insert your own colorful references here!) Brauer mounds”. ...... I dated only big breasted women.......I always ordered two scoops of ice cream.......it wasn't pretty I tell ya!
More than that, golfers seem to be getting tired of the “90’s style artistic” earthmoving. Golf course architects pushed the envelope of what could be done in earthmoving, but even I was getting tired of looking at them. While I see the beauty of many different design styles, most styles solve some problems and create others.
I came by my love of mounds honestly – my mentors used them a lot. I graduated from University of Illinois in Landscape Architecture. Their most famous graduate was Sasaki, who proclaimed “the land is putty” which doesn’t exactly jive with the long held notion in golf course architecture theory of “naturalism.”
But, in truth, even Ross and the other Golden Age guys used them a lot. In “Golf Has Never Failed Me” Ross has a chapter called “Solid Mound Work.” There are numerous examples of all Golden Age golf course architects using mounds to support bunkers and frame greens. And, properly done, mounding and earth forms can be a work of art. It’s just that after 1950 or so, when earthmoving became economically feasible, mounds kept getting bigger and bigger and looked a lot less natural. The reasons modern mounding doesn’t look as natural as older ones are many:
• Mounds “season” over time as tree planting and changing grass lines keep them from looking as artificial. The artificiality of mounds comes from:
o Designing mounds on paper to relate to the green, typically placed on the inside curves, rather than ground forms
o Over reliance on “shaped” mounds (no shaper is as varied as nature)
o Saving fill by:
Building steeper slopes. RTJ and many others – like Ralph Plummer in Texas, built 5 and 6 to 1 slopes. Mounds are often built as steep as 3:1 – the maximum slope most mowers can handle.
Building mounds more than twice the slope of natural grade, which look out of place
Forgetting to “feather” the toe of slope into natural grade at 6:1 or greater, even if the bulk of the mound is fairly steep, and many golf course architects lost sight of this.
Building to the same height and slope
Not following natural contours at all – for instance building the highest mounds on the higher natural side of the green
They do have their uses:
• Creating a sense of “enclosure” which does seem to satisfy a human need to be in a clearly defined space. This can be done with trees if present.
• Framing Greens, providing a back drop when none exists otherwise
• Keeping the average golfer’s approach shot “handy” to the green.
• Helping the good player play more aggressively to back pins.
• Helping all players with distance judgment
In fairways, gentle mounds (5:1 is about the max that can be mowed) can create shadow patterns and areas that are more or less desirable for a tee shot to land. They can deflect tee shots that are not well struck. Most golf course architects use these fairway mounds in the landing zones beyond 300 yards – building a bunker for the small percentage of players hitting it that long makes little sense, especially given that bunkers seldom trouble the stronger player.
Adjacent to fairways, they can do many of the same things:
• Screen Objectionable Views (like the maintenance area or unsightly off site land uses)
• Provide Safety from adjacent fairways or the practice fairway
• Create dramatic shadow patterns
• Give landscape plantings a good “head start” on achieving a desirable height
• Show off landscape plantings, by allowing back plantings to be higher than front ones
• Contain shots in lieu of greater width (although mounds also require space)
• “Turn” doglegs left or right
• Artificially create a “valley” fairway which is always a comfortable shot
• Hide Cart Paths (although care must be taken to leave wide access routes)
• Create drainage on flat ground
Mounds also have their problems:
• They take longer and are more dangerous (in some cases) to mow
• They require more irrigation and/or often dry out
• While they contain moderately wild tee shots, overly wild shots that clear the mounds leave a blind approach and potential safety problems
• When hot shots go well over the green, they result in a difficult pitch over the mound to a green sloping away, but the number of shots that go long is truly small.
The biggest reasons I have used them is to hold average players near greens to speed play on my mostly public course work. I have seen it work on many occasions, because average players simply don’t get much back spin and their shots tend to roll out a little, and those mounds have kept them chipping from the fringe. And, with faster greens and flatter slopes, the roll out on an average golfer’s shot is probably increasing, making small backing mounds even more necessary.
While intended for average players, I good players who won’t play a particular golf course architects work because he doesn’t provide backing mounds, which make back pins almost inaccessible in their minds.
So why are mounds vilified in the current era? Of course, some of it that many, many mounds were built badly - with symetrical slopes, equal heights, etc. But, are they truly misguided, or just overused in the last dozen years? Is it human nature to see what’s wrong with any particular feature rather than what’s right? And do we (particularly Americans) just get used to change and new and fresh styles (even if some of those are truly “retro”?