What's happened to funnel greens

[Patrick_Mucci]

My appologies to RS Barker, for getting ahead of him, but I was thinking about the 6th green at NGLA, some of its features and this same feature on other greens such as # 1,
# 3, # 5, # 8, # 11, # 12, # 13, # 15, # 17, and # 18

What struck me was the architecture of failure, the design patterns at the periphery of the greens, that cause miss-hit shots to funnel into nearby bunkers.

This feature isn't isolated, it is abundant throughout the golf course.  While the funnel isn't always into bunkers, miss-hit shots are frequently funneled into the rough or back down the fairways.

My question is, is this feature extinct or becoming extinct ?

Have residential or resort course caused its demise ?

Why don't we see more of this feature throughout new golf courses ?

Could it be instrumental in defending par.

P. S.  hopefully, this spring I will have ample photos of this green and others reflecting this feature.

[Scott_Burroughs]

The feature is not extinct in new courses, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's on the endangered list.

I encountered it first hand at Chechessee Creek just a couple of months ago.  On the shortish par 3 13th (pictured here and in the GCA write-up),



 I hit a slightly thin 8-iron that appeared to both me and my caddie that it would be just shy of pin high but in fine shape about 15 feet left of the right pin position.  It was a little shorter than we suspected, and landed about 5 paces onto the left center of the green, then slowly trickled backwards and then left into the front left bunker.  It was not backspin that spun back as I rarely spin more than a few feet backwards.

[TEPaul]

What a great subject! Talk about a wonderful  architectural "nuance" that could and does have much meaning!

Patrick:

You're going to do what? What did you say you were going to take ample amounts of this spring? Ph, pho, photos??? What the hell is wrong with you? We don't use photographs on here any more--remember? They're worthless in architectural analysis and evaluation. You told us so and told us C.B MacDonald told you so in no uncertain terms on p. 295 of his book "Scotland's gift".

The only way to analyze and evaluate this "funnel" theory is to play it hundreds of times in varying wind conditons to build the proper data base for evaluation! Otherwise it should not be mentioned!

If you take a photo on C.B's golf course, he will set you on fire in the redan bunker and see that you burn in Hell!

[corey miller]

Perhaps some of the australian contingent can comment in more detail but this is one of the things I remember most of the courses i played over there.  the areas around the bunkers are cut very short and balls are constantly sucked in effectively making the bunkers play about 10 feet wider.  

IMO a lot cooler alternative than the wedge from the collar(rough) with one foot in the bunker.

[Joel_Stewart]

Surprisingly I played a new course last year that incorporates funnel greens into a number of holes.  The course was The Dragon golf course in Northern Caliornia by architect Robin Nelson.  I despised it!    I'm do not remember what the yardage is at The National but The Dragon played about 7100 yards and burning 3 irons into up hill or down hill greens made it impossible.

So to answer your question, hell yes it can instrumental in defending par if used improperly.  And yes, the proliferation of resort courses and basic public access courses has forgotten this feature as well as most other classic course design features.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The posting of Photos is conditional upon the prohibiting of any analysis on the play of the golf course, and are for informational purposes only.  

In reviewing each hole at NGLA I was struck by the repetitiveness of this feature (is that "formulaic"?)
and the wonderful impact or boost it gives to each hole employing its use.

I think one of the neat thing about this green and adjacent green feature is the differing results, some funnels are into bunkers, others into rough, others back down the fairway.

And some of the funnel greens funnel the ball toward the hole or bowls if you will.  #'s 1, 3, 4, 6, 11, and 16 are the most pronounced, with some greens having both toward and away funnels.

This interesting combination of funnels on the greens, some with positive effects, some with negative effects is part of the GENIUS of its design, the GENIUS of its architect, and the GENIUS of me quoting his "you must play to assay" philosophy  

I wish someone could suggest a method of photography that would assist in the capturing of the internal and external contours of the greens.

[Richard_Goodale]

Patrick

Take a look at the "Pot Bunker" thread where Mike O'Neill pointed out the necessity for sandy soils when making what you would call "funnel" greens.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

The funneling effects of the greens at NGLA are very interesting and one I never really thought of in that way. I wouldn't call that funneling effect formulaic though, as you might be suggesting, and particularly since they're apt to "funnel" every which way to Sunday! What I would call it is extremely good and varied greens.

To be "formulaic" in that sense would be to funnel the ball say off the greens everywhere or onto them everywhere or something else similar everywhere. But again, the golfer can't really depend on anything in particular since the next green might do something entirely different. And just to break up the entire concept of "funneling" MacDonald hands you #17's green (that really doesn't funnel) at about the most incongruous time imaginable where one might expect him to  hand you the MOST funneling green on a hole that short.

I know you're trying to slip in again this idea that "formulaics" in architecture is not a bad thing since some of us think it is. You've tried to sell that argument a bunch of times in the last few months with bunker depths in relation to distance and never routing into the rising and setting sun but we produced a number of great examples in all those examples to shoot down your contentions into another bloody heap each and every time.

But your "funneling" idea is a great observation but it's not necessarily formulaic. It could be, I'm sure, but fortunately you just happened to produce a great example yourself of where almost constant "funneling" is not formulaic, so this time you shot yourself down and did not even give me the opportunity to shoot you down for which I'm more than a little pissed and depressed!

But just to make you feel better--I definitely will admit that from a photograph--even a very good one would be very difficult to pick up the nuancy "funneling" effects of NGLA's greens, so in this case your "You must play to assay" dictate is wholly correct--and frankly it might take much play in all wind conditions to truly become aware of this particular indication of architectural sophistication!

Something else occurs to me! When C.B. MacDonald wrote that remark of his on p. 295 of "Scotland's Gift" about evaluating a golf course and how it must be done in all conditions that you've been hiding behind lately in your Robin Hoodism against architectural criticism, he obviously was only talking about NGLA!

So if you want to try to hold us to that dictate of no photographic analysis it will only pertain to NGLA henceforth --and nowhere else! I might not be able to pick up NGLA's "funneling" in the best photo, but I can pick up unattractive containment mounding in the smallest and the worst photo!

[TEPaul]

And as always seems to be the case #6 green just may be again the star of the entire show in this "funneling" effect thing since basically it can funnel the ball in almost every direction imaginable including right into the bunker directly behind the right back of the green thanks to a bit of inhouse restoration on Karl Olsen's part!

[John_D._Bernhardt]

Great post Patrick, I find one or two per private course to be nice addtions on short par 4's or the short 3. I am not sure it is a great feature on a daily fee/resort that has little repeat play.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I wasn't trying to slide anything in, just trying to bust your chops a little  

John Bernhardt,

Initially one might think that this feature should be limited, but it is done so brilliantly that many never notice it until they are the victim or beneficiary of this design feature.

Some of the greens are rather large, like # 6.  If the pin is back left on # 6 and you hit it ten feet from the pin, unless you take an extended field trip around the green you'll never get to see the many nuances of the green and adjacent green features.

Some funnels go to bunkers others to fairway and others to rough so the feature isn't immediately obvious.

Other funnels can aid your ball, and as in many sports, our eyes tend to follow the ball, sometimes missing out on the nearby action, or special architectual features, having positive and negative affects upon our game.

NGLA is one of those courses that continues to reveal itself no matter how many times you play it.  If you ever get the opportunity to play it, leap at it.

[TEPaul]

Oh really, you weren't trying to slide something in, huh, Pat? You're always trying to slide something in and it usually includes the architectural benefits of formulaics somehow!

See that little smiley face you put next to that remark? Well, it looks to me like the cat that ate the canary just before he throws up!