[Padraig Dooley]

In F.W. Hawtree's book 'The Golf Course' the chapter on philosophy has a list of Tom Simpson's set of rules.

1. Avoid Balance.
2. Visible green surface at short holes, but complete visibility not essential at those over 400 yards where the target is the flag stick and not the hole.
3. Large flat greens negate scientific and artistic design.
4. Greens should never be round or square. A pear shape is more desirable generally.
5. Remember the greenkeeper's cutting and hole changing requirement. Make enough flat areas to provide a 6 feet circle round hole positions. Three quarters of the putting surface should be flat.
6. Two levels separated by a low mound are very acceptable, but outline and area will vary according to the range and position of the approach shot.
7. Artifical green construction should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Then make sure it looks like original ground.
8. Differentiate greens on one course. Resist copying famous models but by all means use some of their principal features.
9. Entrance to greens at holes:
    375-475 yards - about 20 yards
    325-375 yards - about 18 yards, both being modidfied by 'gather' on the approach. Fix the centre then view it from the approach shot to fix the inner ends of wing bunkers.
10. Avoid excessive undulations and allow the player to gauge line and strength reasonably accurately.
11. Green bunkers should only exceed three exceptionally.

Tom Simpson might be one of the most underrated architects, here in Ireland Ballybunion, Co. Louth, Carlow have his stamp, Morfontaine and Hardelot in France yet I doubt many golfers could name him as the architect of the above well known courses.

Back to his rules, the one that caught my attention was the first one;

Avoid balance.

What balance do you think he's talking about?

Symmetry?

I always thought that a balanced course has a good mixture of all shot types and hole lengths.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Padraig,
Most of the rules that follow his first, "Avoid Balance", all seem to pertain to just that, balancing the elements.

I think he meant don't be dull, as balancing everything out doesn't let you create something at the edge.

[Padraig Dooley]

Jim

I have Simpson's book as well, must see if he includes these rules and comments on them somewhere in it.

I wonder did he equate balance with a scientific type of design, if there are x right to left doglegs there must be x left to right doglegs etc.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Padraig,
If you dig around in his book you might find the answer, but I don't know, and maybe no one knows what he meant.

I could be in left field about this, but it seems to me that when an architect describes his/her philosophy in print, it almost has to come off as some sort of formula or 'rules of thumb'.

So I'd say Simpson was pretty smart, to avoid this trap he prefaced all his rules with a most nebulous one, "Avoid Balance".  It kind of reminds me of those lists of rules that eventually end with one that says: "When in doubt, see rule #1".

 



 



  

[Sean_A]

Padraig

The first thing I thought of when I saw "balance" was the length of holes per 9 or even as they come in mini 3-4 hole stretches.  Meaning, its ok to have three par 3s on one side and only one par 3 on the other.  Or, thats it fine to have back to back par 5s etc.  Or that its ok to have a long par 3 followed by a short par 4 - both playing a not too dissimilar distance.  Or other examples of this sort. 

From seeing some of his other greens which are obviously man made the one rule which surprised me was about artificial greens construction. I really had Simpson pegged for the ripples in many of the St Enodoc greens, but this has made me pause about that.  It seems clear to me that greens such as the 3rd are clearly not natural.  Perhaps Braid or Fowler had more to do with the interesting greens of St Enodoc than I previously believed or maybe Simpson had a different idea of what natural looked like.

Ciao   

[Jim Nugent]

Make enough flat areas to provide a 6 feet circle round hole positions. 

I assume he means the area around the hole should be flat, and it should be a circle with a 6 foot radius.  That means the last 6 feet or so of any putt would be straight.  No break. 

If he means a 6 foot diameter, then the last 3 feet would be straight.  If he means a 6 foot circumference, then less than the last foot of each putt would be straight. 

Taken with the rest of his rule on greens, I think he means a 6 foot radius.  Surprises me. 

Three quarters of the putting surface should be flat.

  Not that different from Gary Player.  Lots of great courses break this rule.  Do Simpson's own courses follow it?

Avoid balance: don't know what Simpson meant, but for me it suggests keeping golfers on edge, out of a rote comfort zone.  Shake them up, make them think.   

[Niall C]

[

Three quarters of the putting surface should be flat.

  Not that different from Gary Player.  Lots of great courses break this rule.  Do Simpson's own courses follow it?

Jim,

You say that a lot of great courses break this rule but then I would guess that most will break any rule at some point. I'm not sure whether you are suggesting that the break this rule as a matter of course, if so I would have to disagree. I would suggest that the old courses are more subtle in this regard than modern courses.

Where I don't agree with Simpson is Rule 4 that states that greens shouldn't be round or square. If you look at the greens of many classic courses on plan, they are fairly regularly shaped but it is the contours round the edges which give them their "shape".

Niall

[TEPaul]

Padraig:

Simpson may've used the word "balance" to mean routing courses where certain types of holes had to come at certain times in a standardized or formulaic manner. If that was his meaning he probably said that because it seems many architects were tending to do just that after the turn of the century.

On the other hand, the word "balance" is considered by landscape architects and now golf course architects to be one of the approximately five L.A. "art principles." It seems a bit more likely to me that Simpson meant it in this context because of a particular style that had evolved----ie formal, geometric etc.

C&W defined the L.A. art principle "balance" thusly;

"Balance can be formal of asymmetrical. Formal balance is acheived with similarly shaped bunkers placed on either side of a green. Asymmetrical or informal balance is exemplified by a large feature on one side of a green and two mounds on the other. To explain these two kinds of balance, landscape architects use the examples of two people of equal weight on either side of a seesaw, which is then equally balanced (formal) and for informal one large person on one end and two smaller persons whose combined weight equals the larger person's on the other."

As Simpson seemed to be the kind of architect that was experimenting with more natural looking architecture than that which preceded him he was probably advocating staying away from "formal balance" in his rule to "avoid balance."

[TEPaul]

By the way, those are some most interesting "Rules" from Simpson. Do you know when he first wrote them?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Padraig,
Here's a quote that might suggests he might have seen balance as dullness.
 
"In 82 years Tom Simpson has touched life at an enviable number of points and I have always attributed to this fact his refusal to produce for golfing clients anything which he himself deemed humdrum, however much they desired it - as they often did"-Henry Longhurst

.....and one from him that suggests he didn't much stock in following any set of rules, including his own:

"Now in golf course design, the obvious thing is almost invariably the wrong thing"

[TEPaul]

"Resist copying famous models but by all means use some of their principal features."



Interesting remark or Rule!

Who all did Simpson have in mind with that remark? Obviously Macdonald is the most likely candidate but perhaps he meant others who apparently never really understood what Macdonald was saying and doing and thinking which was not exactly to use set models of holes from elsewhere to be completely manufactured onto some other site somewhere.

If Macdonald didn't use set models of holes from elsewhere entirely manufactured onto the ground did someone else do that or advocate it?

Who might that have been?

[Alfonso Erhardt]

I believe that Simpson's "avoidance of balance" is related to various points upon which he was always very insistent in his books and letters:

 - Holes should not have bunkers on both side of the fairways to avoid framing the tee-shot (or both sides of the green, for the same reason)
 - Center of the fairway should never be the ideal place to be after the tee-shot
 - Orientation of the green should never be square with the fairways
 - Avoid penal bunkers (he called them lighthouses or buoys for better players).
 - That the hole must be more difficult than it looks or easier than it looks, but never what it looks.

Regards,

[Padraig Dooley]

I'm just looking through Simpson's book now and these rules are in the chapter on Putting Greens. So he made these rules with green construction in mind. Hawtree seems to have done a small bit of editing as well.

The first rule is
Balance nothing if you can avoid it. This may sound unkind, but is generally effectual.

Avoiding balance makes much more sense regarding putting greens only. I'd imagine balance means symmetry in this case.

Rule 8 is
It is not advisable to have two similar greens on the same course. Each green should have it's own note of individuality. The temptation to copy the greens of some famous course may frequently present itself, but the temptation should be firmly resisted. At the same time, there is no harm in remembering the features of famous greens and trying to incorporate then in your scheme, always bearing in mind that the size and shape depend on the length of the shot leading up to it. Also it must not be forgotten that a great deal depends on the character of the ground in front.

Tom Paul, in Hawtree's version of this rule I thought he may have been having a pop at MacDonald as well but from this version I don't think so. I think he's just advising against imposing an imported green into surroundings where it doesn't fit.

Jim, the 6 foot area is the diameter around the hole.

What area of a green is generally pinable? Is it close to the 75% that he mentions should be flat?

[Jim Nugent]

Jim,

You say that a lot of great courses break this rule but then I would guess that most will break any rule at some point. I'm not sure whether you are suggesting that the break this rule as a matter of course, if so I would have to disagree. I would suggest that the old courses are more subtle in this regard than modern courses.

I haven't played any of these courses.  That said, my impression is they all have many greens with lots of slopes and contours:

ANGC
Oakmont
TOC
Crystal Downs
Royal Melbourne
N. Berwick
NGLA
Royal Portrush
CPC
Pinehurst #2
Pasatiempo

Are 75% of the greens on these courses flat? 

[Anthony Gray]

  Cruden Bay has the square 14th green then the blind par three following....But this helps to avoid balance.

  Anthony

[Bob_Huntley]

In F.W. Hawtree's book 'The Golf Course' the chapter on philosophy has a list of Tom Simpson's set of rules.

5. Remember the greenkeeper's cutting and hole changing requirement. Make enough flat areas to provide a 6 feet circle round hole positions. Three quarters of the putting surface should be flat.

It's a pity that Rule 5 is not observed very much these days. See my comments on an earlier thread.

 Re: Gary Player Q & A; Design, Augusta, Health
« Reply #17 on: April 22, 2009, 07:28:17 pm »   

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

Gary is right on the severity of slope on many greens. Even at courses within  the Del Monte Forest, we have moderate sized greeens with fewer than three or four places for a hole. Get above the hole and it is like putting on a ski slope.

I haven't played Harbor Town in over thirty years but I always thought the greens were flat and delightful to putt on, as it would appear, did Brian Gay.

Bob

[Bill_McBride]

Jim,

You say that a lot of great courses break this rule but then I would guess that most will break any rule at some point. I'm not sure whether you are suggesting that the break this rule as a matter of course, if so I would have to disagree. I would suggest that the old courses are more subtle in this regard than modern courses.

I haven't played any of these courses.  That said, my impression is they all have many greens with lots of slopes and contours:

ANGC
Oakmont
TOC
Crystal Downs
Royal Melbourne
N. Berwick
NGLA
Royal Portrush
CPC
Pinehurst #2
Pasatiempo

Are 75% of the greens on these courses flat? 

75% of the greens (13-14 of the 18)? Or 75% of each green?

I haven't played all of those courses, but I can say that North Berwick's greens are generally flattish (except #16  ), and that 75% of the greens at the Old Course are not dramatically sloped or contoured, just huge!

[Jim Nugent]

75% of the greens (13-14 of the 18)? Or 75% of each green?

I haven't played all of those courses, but I can say that North Berwick's greens are generally flattish (except #16  ), and that 75% of the greens at the Old Course are not dramatically sloped or contoured, just huge!

I included N. Berwick because of what I read in Ran's profile: "In addition to the placement of the greens, some of the most boldly contoured greens in the British Isles are found here."

Similarly, Ran says in the TOC profile, "With such large, undulating greens, the hole location can significantly effect the exactness of play that is required."

As for what 75% flat means, it sounds to me like Simpson meant that as a general rule, 75% of each green should be flat. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()