[jeffwarne]

Mike,

Yes, I agree EH has a few.

Well I hope there are some left after the "USGA suggestions" are implemented.
I played one of the coolest shots of my life on #10 from pin high left there-and I know that was one green they were going to adjust this fall.
I forgot though, imagination is not on the USGA's criteria for "fairness".

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff M,

Good to hear. In a way, I really think trying to build on level greens is really a new idea, and while marketed as following golden age principles, it truly doesn't.  Even the ground level greens at HB and BP mentioned here had enough fill added to highlight the green and bunkers defined them.

Mac wouldn't have built Wolf Point that way!  He favored built up green complexes for visibility and definition.  Personally, I still like greens and bunkers well defined as its the focus of the hole.  To me, shaping is justified for those reasons and "following the ground" except in a general way as I described above shouldn't be the first priority in design.  

Its cool when it can be done, but its not the first priority and likely never was, even when they did it with no technology at early courses.  Even at TOC they modified the ground as they felt the needed to for strategic bunkers, putting greens, etc.  And when more dirt could be moved, it was.  I can see scaling back the massive earthmoving operations of the 1990's in design, but only to the GA, where greens, tees and bunkes were built to achieve their objectives and fw remained generally unchanged in most areas.

I am glad some gca's are doing it, but after much consideration, I am not.  Sorry to be so contrarian, but I promised Mike Young I would start the next "let's get real" thread......

[JNC Lyon]

Garden City does have a bunch, and those are the best greens on the course (particularly 10 and 15).

9 at Brook Lea, 4 and 14 at CC of Rochester, 18 at Oak Hill West, and 1 at Oak Hill East all follow the grain of the land vary closely.  13 at Oak Hill East follows the grain of the land, though I believe it was altered from its original form.  These are all Ross courses in Rochester, NY.

I agree though, it is very hard to find a truly lay-of-the-land green.  I always think of Donald Ross's West Course at Oak Hill as being a very natural golf course.  The course's biggest strength is the way it flows over the land.  Yet, when I go back and think about it, almost every green possesses multiple manufactured features.  Most of the greens are set at natural high points and use the grain of the land to their advantage.  Internally, though, the greens differ from their surroundings.  Overall, either the West Course or Teugega are the best set of greens I've seen in my limited resume of Ross courses.

[Don_Mahaffey]

"To me, shaping is justified for those reasons and "following the ground" except in a general way as I described above shouldn't be the first priority in design."

Jeff, what's the first priority?
Is it not to build the best possible hole? And I'll add that IMO, it should be build the best possible hole with the least amount of work.

The three greens I posted were left at ground level because the ground was interesting, it drained well, and visability from the tee was good. On the 15th you can see the bottom of the stick on about 75% of the green, the 6th about the same or more if your eyes are better than mine, and on the 16th you can see the entire stick on 100% of the green from anywhere in the fwy.


So tell me again, why you would build them up?   

[Jeff_Mingay]

Jeff,

I should add, we didn't build the greens mentioned above because we're trying to prove something. It's not necessarily a philosophical thing. These greens just worked on native grade, in our view, in those particular situations.

Take Sagebrush for example. The course occupies a relatively difficult site, in the moutains of British Columbia. While the 4th, 6th, 7th, 14th and 15th are basically on grade, the 1st (!), 8th, 9th, 11th (!), 16th (!) and 18th required a lot of fill and a lot of shaping to create.

One thing that Rod Whitman's taught me over the years is not to be afraid to move material and shape to make something work. At the same time though, when it's already there what's the point of over-working it?

Unless you're getting percentage of construction costs for a fee, I guess 

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

Jim Urbina and I walked around Sand Hills before any construction had been done, the holes were just flagged out ... and we counted 12 or 13 greens that could have been planted just as they were.  I don't know how many of them had little touch-ups that would disqualify them in your eyes.

#11 at Pacific Dunes is definitely not one of them; that's all cut down from the original grade.  The only green at Pacific which was ALL just "laying on the ground" and required no shaping was the lower green on #9.

However, 90% of the greens I've built in my life were started at original grade (no imported cut or fill).  I think that's been one of the big and unnoticed differences between our work and everyone else's (including Bill Coore, who often adds fill to make his greens).  I got used to the idea because I saw so much of it overseas.

Incidentally, Pete Dye told me he designed most greens at grade, and cut out in front of them if necessary to set them up a bit.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don and Jeff M,

We agree that we should build the best possible golf holes.  And, with the minimal amounts of work necessary.  If that is no work, great! If it is a lot of work, that's okay, too.  I just wouldn't build a green at grade just because it seemed like a minimalist philosophy.   

Don,

You mentioned that the greens were hard to see in your first post. If that was the case from the tee or landing area, I would probably build them up a bit to highlight them.

Tom D,

Ross also built many greens by lowering the front to raise the back (at least that's what his plan notes say in many cases)

On most of my courses, several greens are built as cut and fill balances.  I will say that a few years ago, I began chastising my then associates for drawing the plans more based on cut and fill balance than seeing the green or features.  We didn't always have the greatest sites and I often found that the greens weren't as visible, or the bunkers not as deep as I envisioned, and hearing "yeah but we balanced cut and fill" didn't make me feel any better about the end result.

Also, I just wrote a column about the problems of wet approaches (it was discussed here a month ago) and I have been raising greens or more accurately, increasing the upslope of my approaches to try to avoid that problem by making sure drainage water really scoots out of there.  I also like the look of those long, full approach areas.  (maybe I'm going through a phase here)

But, I find that paying attention to those kind of details make it play better, and work better for the super, even if in theory balancing cut and fill is a good concept.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Jeff,
What I mean is it's hard to see the definition between green and surround...you can see the stick no problem, just hard to tell where green ends and begins. Is that a bad thing? Does a good course need strong definition? That's a serious question for you and anyone else here. I've heard arguments from both sides...I'm of the belief that the less definition the better, and I know I'm in the minority. What so important about definition. I really believe thats the heart of the matter here.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Don and Jeff M,

We agree that we should build the best possible golf holes.  And, with the minimal amounts of work necessary.  If that is no work, great! If it is a lot of work, that's okay, too.  I just wouldn't build a green at grade just because it seemed like a minimalist philosophy.   

Jeff,

This is a point I was trying to make above. I couldn't call anyone who'd simply build a green at grade because "it seemed like a minimalist philosophy" a GOOD DESIGNER. Frankly, that type of approach is idiotic.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

I don't happen to like ambiguous greens and know that most golfers do prefer to know where the edge is so they know if the pin is 10 foot off the edge or further to plan their shot. The point of definition is to help golfers in plannin their strategy.  It seems there are good and bad types of deception - fooling with distance perception seems accepted, but concealing how far the pin is from the green edge is not.  

In terms of visual composition, I was always of the opinion that a composition needs to have a focal point.  In golf, that is usually the green, at least for the approach shot.  

Basically, if golfers want definition to improve or help their play, and it looks better to most golfers to see a green with attractive bunkers around it, then I will design that way.  I understand that there are other views, and part of my point on this thread is truly that gca.com has made me consider that option (greens blending into the surrounds visually) but after due consideration, I don't like the idea.

Don't worry, I won't start an email campaign to harrass anyone who disagrees with me.......I am not the Emporer here!

Jeff M,

I thought we agreed.  You know, after that Red Wings/Stars divide we have, I think we have been in sync.

And, part of the idea behind this thread is that the amateur designers here overplay minimalism and following the existing ground contours as a main driver of design.  We design for golfers, not the ground!

[Jeff_Mingay]

Jeff,

I agree that many people misunderstand so-called "minimlaism", and that perhaps it's a bit "overplayed" here at Golf Club Atlas.

At the same time though, we may disagree in that there are too many good reasons not to utilize inherent terrain in the design and construction of a green -- here and there, when it really makes sense -- including minimizing construction costs and creating the most interesting and unique golf holes possible. Nature seems to be more creative than most golf course designers!

I can't stress enough that this isn't some goofy, uneducated, romantic approach to golf architecture. It's simply an approach that I feel will, again, result in interesting and unique golf courses, featuring a remarkable variety of holes... and, on occasion, minimize construction costs.

Go Wings 

[Don_Mahaffey]

Jeff,
I appreciate the honesty and I agree that most golfers do want clear definition. I've already heard from one visitor to WP that they'd have liked the par 3s better if they could see more of the green. Fact is they were looking at the green, they just couldn't pick it out, but it was right there in front of them.

I can't speak for Mike Nuzzo, but I'm guessing that if we were building a busy public course, we might have tried to make it "easier" to pick everything out. At WP, the clientele plays the course a lot and a little mystery once in a while seemed good.
I like courses where the bounce is the same throughout and if it all looks the same too, I like them even better.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I only think there is a groupthink here that is somewhat goofy, uneducated, and overly romantic.

I agree that following the land in a general way leads to variety - if the ground angles left, build a green angling left.  If its steep, build a steeper green, or add a tier.  I typically find that a site and my routing on that site yields 6-12 green sites that strongly suggest some kind of green or another.  I follow those suggestions closely and use the other green sites to "balance out" shot demands or use pet concepts.  

I may in fact, be more dogmatic about using some of the design ideas on my palette than you might be.  I find I get more variety in golf holes by following the "game plan" (like scripting the first 15 plays) but also adapting when conditions dictate.  To me, this includes having some basic concept templates, and then really looking for sites that will support the different hazard patterns on tee and approach shots.  That sentence doesn't really apply to green contours, I admit!

I also agree that shapers get more repetitive than nature in most cases and tend to shape to the green or bunker edges rather than the angles of the natural contours. But, it is quite possible that gently rolling land might easily suggest five dog leg lefts in a row, or bunkers in similar locations.  Its then that I consciously try to balance things out by differing the man made golf features.

I am still somewhat reluctant to build a reverse slope greens even if the contour goes that way, although I will build at least one per course.  Variety of that type is good, but if its a resort course, I feel the golfer may not understand in playing once or once a year.  I also like a few side slope greens where that is the direction the ground goes.  But, I build most greens wth a degree of rise front to back to help golfers hold shots.

As to construction costs, as we all know, permitting and other items continue to make the percentage cost of shaping pretty minimal.  Most contractors bid shaping as a lump sum so the only way to save money for me is to build cut and fill balance greens where possible to minimize the scraper hauls.  Even then, a few bucks spent, if necessary makes sense since the green will be there for a hundred years, or until the ban golf, or they hire you to rebuild my attrocity!

Don M,

As pointed out above, I think there should be design differences between resorts and privates.  Many public courses get the same regular clientele as privates and IMHO, can be designed as such. I had the idea that WP was out of town and more of a once a year place......where mystery might not be as appreciated.

The "gouge the sides" to keep overland drainage off the approach areas would work well for those who want to keep consistent bounce and roll as a play feature. 

[Adam Clayman]

Jeff, Here's a link to that thread you reference in your first post. It was I that said the most varied greens are the ones that closely follow nature. 

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38036.0.html

I only think there is a groupthink here that is somewhat goofy, uneducated, and overly romantic.

I agree that following the land in a general way leads to variety -
 

Goofy groupthink? Yet right there you agree. Uneducated? If an education is needed to opine on GCA, why do you often reference what you think the average player, or, other people, want and/or think, as a justification for how you design?

[Brad Tufts]

Myopia has a few....#2, #4, #6, #7, #8, #11, #17.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Brad,

I get your reference to those greens at Myopia, here. But it reminds me that, in most cases, we don't really know what Hebert Leeds, or any of the old-timers (now dead), actually did construction-wise to create such greens. In other words, those particular greens might appear to be on grade, but relative to Jeff's original question, does the contour represent what was actually there pre-construction?

Does it really matter? In the big picture, I think not.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff, Here's a link to that thread you reference in your first post. It was I that said the most varied greens are the ones that closely follow nature. 

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38036.0.html

I only think there is a groupthink here that is somewhat goofy, uneducated, and overly romantic.

I agree that following the land in a general way leads to variety -
 

Goofy groupthink? Yet right there you agree. Uneducated? If an education is needed to opine on GCA, why do you often reference what you think the average player, or, other people, want and/or think, as a justification for how you design?

Adam,

All good questions. Here are my answers:

Golfers tend to think of mostly one thing - their score.  As the old saying goes, don't ask a golfer what he thinks of a course, ask him what he shot and you have the answer.  When they complain about a particular aspect of the course, I mentally insert "it doesn't fit my game" to each of their sentences.  As in, "I don't like the sixth hole (it doesn't fit my game)"

Designing for how the customer will play the game is foremost in my mind.  What I call "groupthink" here would suggest that it be designed for a lot of other reasons, like minimalism, etc.  Or, for very good players like Tiger that will never show up!  Niether is a primary goal to strive for necessarily, at least at the expense of good golf for the majority.  But, minimalism can be a pretty good means to an end.

Since I am rarely asked to design private golf retreats, this affects my thinking. There is room for all types of courses in this country and the world.  But, most should probably be pretty playable and attractive to those who pay the bills.  In that regard, I do consider variety to be important, whether achieved by using template holes that are vastly different, as Raynor did, or by letting nature dictate to the degree that you are more likely to come up with something truly unique, with a sense of place.  (Oddly, most Raynor courses have a real sense of place to me)

The par 3 at Sand Hills where a domed green on a long shot makes it harder to hold (after being pretty durn hard to hit in a crosswind anyway) is an example of a green I would have built differently - first considering helping the golfer make the shot, and then minimizing the grading if I could.

Others are always free to disagree!  And of course, the fact that most gca's would design each course differently is what makes it all so intersting.

[Adam Clayman]

Jeff, Thanx for the insight.

  Geoff must be lurking. Here's his daily quote...

 

To my mind, the most important thing in the Championship course is the terrain, because no matter how skillfully one may lay out the holes and diversify them, nevertheless one must get the thrill of nature. She must be big in mouldings for us to secure the complete exhilaration and joy of golf. The made course cannot compete with the natural one.
GEORGE THOMAS

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam,

He probably is, but is he reading this thread or the scale threads?  I thnk Mac also said something about man's "puny strivings" but always took that too mean pimply mounds, vs. those with broad slopes and well, larger scale.

Make no mistake, GT built his greens, as per his "mouldings" comment.

I doubt he found the Mae West Green in nature!  His inspiration was elsewhere....and Thompson channeled it later.

[Sean_A]

I know you archie lot are confusing me!  I think of grade level greens (or at least grade level on at least one side as I think many of the older greens were built) to be a very different thing than contoured greens, but I don't see how they are mutually exclusive.  It seems to me that I have seen many what I would call grade level greens (often times the fronts are grade level) that have serious man made contours.  I have also seen some greens (but to a lesser degree) where the greens are basically grade level and flatish, but it is still difficult to zero in on the target range.  I think these sorts of greens are helped greatly by leaving the surrounding area grade level as well.  Ironically, I think this is another type of green which Colt and Dr Mac more or less killed off with their greens on plateaus and defining greens with bunkering.  I know many believe that Dr Mac was effectively using camo with all the huge bunkers, but I wonder if the idea has carried forward well with the formalizing of bunker shapes.  Personally, just as Jeff B states, I believe archies think golfers want high definition greens and so that is what they deliver.  I also think variety has been sacrificed for this style(s) of architecture.  Sometimes, for the sake of drainage, this can't be helped, but I wonder if archies properly explore the idea of grade level greens. 

Ciao 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

I kinda credit RTJ with killing off the grade level green, but it might have happened before that.  All of gca is a slow and continual evolutions, with some starts and stops.

I told the story once of looking through the Chicago Yellow Pages for a place to play golf and the RTJ course (Hillsdale) advertised "elevated greens" as a selling point.  To me, it conveyed "professional design" vs. a mom and pop type course, which I believe many associated with home made and kind of dull.  So, its quite possible that this, - literally "keeping up with the Jones" - combined with increased visual emphasis and other factors to kill off the grade level green to a great degree.

I will say this - elevating the green a few feet is the "safe way" to design.  You can't get in a lot of trouble drainage, air circulation, tree roots encroaching, etc. by doing it.  You also get more visible and deeper bunkers.  I am thinking of garden variety, Merion Parkland type sites, rather than a sand dune spectacular of course.  So, given all the mundane housing courses, and perhaps the workload of archies, it just became standard practice to elevate first, and ask questions later.

[paul cowley]

Its good to see Jeff and Don's stuff....probably on a course where they  had to stretch a buck to make a dollar look like a $1.50's worth of value.

Only the best have this talent, and its only learned from the bottom up.

I'm with ya'll about designing at grade most of the time.....but if I can get the drainage right, I really love shifting a balanced cut and fill to where the 'green' is a foot or two below existing grade. I like going down just a little when I can....I find it works well.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()