Greens with subtle breaks due to poor construction or purposeful contouring?

[Mike Bowline]

Which is It? Greens with “subtle breaks” due to poor construction or purposeful contouring?

How many times have we heard a course described as having difficult putting surfaces due to the “subtle breaks”? (no doubt exacerbated by stimps at 10+). That is, slopes within the greens that are steeper or shallower (less-steep) than the prevailing slope in a given area of the green. These subtle slopes can be large or small, depending on the green itself.

This condition can be caused by unequal consolidation of greens cavity material or purposeful contouring during construction and/or maintenance.

Any other causes?

Myself having constructed greens using a SandPro, I do not understand how subtle breaks could be introduced if this machine is used in the greens construction final finishing. This machine’s job is to move material around and smooth it out in the process.

However, having also built greens by hand, I can in fact understand how subtle breaks can be introduced when built by hand, whether intentional or not.

As a player, do you like subtle breaks, or not?

[J Sadowsky]

Personally, I dislike "subtle breaks."  I can see enjoying them on a members course, as it would give me a strong advantage over my guests, but otherwise, it seems like it is more likely just to ruin an otherwise great chance at birdie.  Without a caddie or prior knowledge, a subtle break isn't strategy, it's bad luck. 

Now, if the subtle break is part of a larger pattern - such as "all putts break towards the lake" - then one can incorporate that knowledge with only a little effort into their game and it makes putting more interesting.  But a break that's impossible to know is there until your putt goes astray - that's like a putt blocked by a windmill, at least to me.

[Derek Dirksen]

Mike,

Example: we got a 40 foot slope on a green.  Lets break it down in 10 foot sections.  lets say the first 20 feet is falling at 2%, then then it drops to 1.5 % and goes back to 2%.  Is that what your referring to as a "subtle break"?   

[Jim Thompson]

Mike,

On new construction there are a lot of nice little tricks to use.  My favorite is as simple as a few water bottles with some black lines on them.  I used a gill rake to settle the sub AND to move the green mix, then the sandpro with a small box float for final.  Often try to add some non-intuitive items, but not subtle.

I think the greatest cause of subtle / random on new courses comes from grow in ersosion and subsequent mending.  When I started working as a kid we still threw top dressing by hand and can tell you that some guys on the crew always stood in the same spot and always laid it heavy in the same places.  Over the years this adds a lot of subtle, local knowledge random goodies.  Even n greens I know very well, AC, I can see that the topdresser has been run in the same direction time and time again and features are starting to change.  A lot can happen in just 6 years.

Cheers!

JT

[Mike Bowline]

Mike,

Example: we got a 40 foot slope on a green.  Lets break it down in 10 foot sections.  lets say the first 20 feet is falling at 2%, then then it drops to 1.5 % and goes back to 2%.  Is that what your referring to as a "subtle break"?   

Derek:

I am referring to random, non-uniform breaks across areas as small as only 3-5 feet. The example you reference could be seen fairly easily with the naked eye, whereas changes in slope across a smaller area are much harder to see with the naked eye when reading a putt.

[Carl Rogers]

I am a little surprised that this thread has not received more comment.

Riverfront greens have a multitude of contouring and counter-contouring that could not have been accidental, because the accidents would have resulted in drainage problems.  The problem is that the 40" putts are difficult.

[Jeff_Brauer]

On older courses, I have always figured the subtle breaks have been created by uneven settling.  With bulldozers compacting the subsoil these days, I figure there is less of that, and any subtle break is purposely added by the gca.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Mike you've obviously gotten too good with the sand pro....
Jim it sounds like you visited Wolf Point....
And I agree with Carl that accidents would create drainage problems - at least 1/2 of the time....

[Sean_A]

I like subtle breaks because they are much easier to fit into the landscape and they frustrate people.  Big bold features are fine here and there, but they tend to get overdone and often times are too obvious.  I have played a few Ross greens which looked to be the easiest on the course because of a lack of contours, but they played as one of the toughest because of a subtle feature (especially in the States) such as the green running away from the fairway.  The one course that confounds me with its greens is Beau Desert, but I think much of the hidden difficulties are due to three factors.  First, subsidence because of coal works.  Second, they are huge greens which often aren't compartmented.  Finally, its a hilly site.

Ciao

[Adam Clayman]

I've seen both ends of the spectrum. Great very subtle breaks on pushed up Ca. Greens that are only detectable and a factor when the speeds are very fast. That's the good. The bad is on modern greens where the only way to predict is getting into the head of the final shaper. These may be my issues but in the good case the only ones who bitched were the scratch player who was caught unaware. While on the latter the implication is usually a flattish surface necessitated by the speed race and are impossible to see or feel with your feet. Greens like Rustic Canyons are great because with a little bit of care and observation what appears to be subtle are detectable with the naked eye. 

[Tom_Doak]

Though it is hard to "plan" such subtleties in a green on paper, it is easy enough for the builder to achieve them if he wants to ... although as Carl mentions, it is harder to do so on a flattish green because an error may result in a pocket.

Unlike Jeff, I believe that topdressing is the cause of more subtle breaks than settling, on older greens.

[Don_Mahaffey]

I think this is the sort of topic that spawned comments like using the village idiot as a shaper.

On a small project where I'm assisting with the agronomics I just witnessed what happens when you get a "pro" on the sand pro. This “pro” took a rough shaped green that was yet to be polished off with a sand rake and spent an entire day doing circles until what was left had the look of a paper plate...and he was quite proud of himself and his work. Lucky for all involved that the PM had enough balls to make the construction company come back and fix it.
Great golf course construction doesn't mean you smooth everything out. And count me in as someone who really, really likes greens with lots of micro movement. Yes, they are harder to read than the modern idea of a heavily contoured green which in essence is a bunch of flat areas separated by severe slopes. I love greens that mimic nature and are treated as one large playable area as opposed to a bunch of small "pinnable" perfect planes separated by un-natural looking rises, bumps or drops.   Greens should look just like the rest of the course, only with shorter grass. If they are puttable and drain, why does every little imperfection need to be rubbed out?

[Mike Hendren]

In my opinion, there is far more "accidental architecture" out there than we care to admit - and much of it is quite good.  I cannot fathom that many of the  Golden Age architects micro-designed green contours and even if they did, the field work likely did not accurately reflect their drawings, whether they were on-site during construction or merely dropped by once or twice. 

Mike

[Jon Wiggett]

Mike,

the ground is always moving and regardless of the quality of the build there is always going to be some movement.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I agree with Michael there is an element of accidental architecture. Some of the ODG only visited the site once after all. I have recently built a set of 18 greens and mainly from my learning fromthis site I have incorporated much bolder features into the greens. I have been able to do this by not totally conforming to USGA methods and by NOT using a sandproor at least not using it too much. On many of the important greens I did the final grading myself.
Greens do move in time and if you are building greens on deep fill areas, be prepared for some pretty dramatic changes the bulk of which will be seen in the first 5 years.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

A great question and a subject close to my heart.

When I started off final contouring greens I used the John Deere sand pro to get the major transition forms and pinnable areas and then after re-compacting I would use a landscape rake to accent any micro-movement so that there was always something going on over the surface. Why? Because these were the kind of fascinating and interesting greens I played on in Scotland as a youth, mainly older courses (non-usga), which had accidental movement from settlement, frost heave, traffic, localised top dressing and minimum maintenance practises.

Although the connoiseur players enjoyed the greens which I had contoured, the intensive maintenance practises of modern green-keeping that followed during course operation soon “ironed out” any micro-movement in a short space of time. Effectively dumbing-down an interesting green surface.

Nowadays I use bolder transition forms to avoid the green “melting” away and don’t bother with the landscape rake as it is a pointless exercise in the long term.

If you’re lucky enough to have a greens with micro-movement and minimal maintenance practices enjoy them while you can.