Rumpled....good for the ground game strategy?

[Joe Hancock]

I like the rumpled look as much as anyone. But, if one were to design a golf course where the ground was fully intended to be utilized strategically, would you do the outrageous rumpled look we've seen in recent posts?

If you designed a Redan whereby you expect the ball to be brought in off an off-green bank...would you rumple it?

If you designed a green with an open front with the intent of encouraging a grounded approach...would you rumple it?

Am I over-thinking strategy and the need for the ground to work in harmony with the rest of the course, design and maintenance included?

Joe

[Kyle Harris]

Moderation in all things, including moderation.

That being said - I think rumpled, uncertain ground can be an effective hazard used in lieu of bunkers or high rough.

[Eric Smith]

Joe,

This photo from Ran's review of Prairie Dunes depicts nice rumple and to my eye looks very inviting to a ground approach.



It is not The Chase however. 

[TEPaul]

"Am I over-thinking strategy and the need for the ground to work in harmony with the rest of the course, design and maintenance included?"


Joe:

I don't think you are at all, although I'm not sure what you mean by working in harmony with the rest of the course. I've seen some pretty interesting manufactured subtle (and not so subtle) topographical features in approaches and such both from the old days and recently. As long as they are somewhat understandable to golfers and the strategic effects of them they should be cool.

On the subject and question of rumpled ground though I did get an interesting education on that many years ago from Coore. He likes the smaller stuff (unless I guess he is dealing with something like a Kapalua) and feels if it gets too big (size or scale-wise) that golf and architecture can sort of get lost in it or it can create some other unintended problems. That was one I learned from him which admittedly really took me by surprise but I do catch his point in certain circumstances and for certain reasons.

Man, I just love speaking with people like that or say a Kelly Blake Moran or Lester George or a Gil Hanse or a Mike DeVries. Just when you think you have them somewhat figured out and where they are coming from they will pull the old switcheroo on you with something! That's what makes this all so interesting to me. To me if all golf course architects thought even remotely alike I think it would eventually become pretty boring or even depressing! 

[Jeff_Brauer]

You will note that the last 30 yards into that Prairie Dunes green are fairly unrumpled.  I agree that in general, the more predictable the slope, the more likely it is to be used by golfers.  A slope should be fairly constant left, right, up or down, but can have subtle rumples.  If they get too big, aren't they just deflection mounds?

Going back to the shot above, I like how the left side of the green has a slightly larger ridge than the right side, but they are both fairly constant.  But if the sharper slopes short of the green were any closer, the would probably prevent the run up shot, especially when the hole was first built and longer allowances had to be made for the run in.  Now, those run ins are presumably shorter than in the old days and the photo looks very inviting to the run up.

In the modern game, who runs it up from over 60 yards or under 200 yards?

[Jud_T]

Nobody on overwatered fairways

[Anthony Gray]

  Rumbled gives a more natural feel. All for it.

  Anthony

[Jeff_Brauer]

Anthony,

Even in the rolling but not rumpled midwest?  Gentle, but smooth rolls are the more natual topography in any place I have lived......

[Mike McGuire]

Nobody on overwatered fairways

In my part of the world , midwest USA, there is NO ground game. Every course is overwatered to the point of silliness. 90% of the members are clueless and think green equals good shape.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I would actually love to see some stats about overwatering!  I am convinced that fewer courses are overwatered than the typical gca.com member thinks. So many have computers now and the ones that do can tell nearly exactly how much water the turf takes.

For that matter I would love some grad student interested in gca to survey via Google Earth every golf course in the US to see what percentage of geens have the fronts blocked nearly completely off by bunkers preventing the ground game.  My guess is that modern US courses have nearly as many mostly open front greens as the old ones, although it might be hard to tell if and when bunkers were added to older courses.

I would not be surprised, however, if modern greens as a whole tend to  be a bit more elevated than older greens.

[Mike McGuire]

Jeff-

Here is "my stat" on overwatering.

It has not rained in a month and my tee shot backs up.

Please ask your grad students to study that.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Have your local high tech pro tell you how much spin you have on that driver. I am guessing well over 2700 RPM.

Seriously, ball marks and everything in the fw?  I know overwatering does occur, and supers will replace all the EVT lost, rather than letting soil dry out a bit (a pet peeve of mine) but if your super really keeps it that wet, he probably has poa annua with a poor root system (which happens nearly everywhere) and no one wants to take the trouble to start over and re-seed.  Overwatering leads to disease, compaction, etc., so I think he is trying to overcome some agronomic problem over which he has little control.

I still say today's enlightened supers are watering less and less as a rule of thumb, based on my own experience.

[Mike McGuire]

I still say today's enlightened supers are watering less and less as a rule of thumb, based on my own experience.

Our super has been on a drying out plan for three years and still the ground game is non existent.

The members in these parts like green and soft. Sad but true.

[Joe Hancock]

So the ground game doesn't exist.

Should an architect even consider the ground game when designing....in the Midwest? Based on current discussion, I would say no.

If the ground game is a non-factor, why spend time rumpling ground that isn't inherently so already? Is the opportunity to create funky lies and stances the only reason(and are they good enough reasons?), or is aesthetics a good reason to spend the money building rumple?

Is rumple simply the case of a UK lover that the USA can't(or won't) have?.....

Joe

[Eric Smith]

Jeff makes a good point and I believe I have mistakenly lumped rumpled and rolling topography into the same category when they are different things.

Here’s some rolling land I’m fond of




And some examples of rumple I’ve found here on gca












Some places are clearly better off without it


Some are ever so subtle




Some not so much


An excellent topic Joe and I hope to learn more as we go.  Thanks!

[Sean_A]

I like the rumpled look as much as anyone. But, if one were to design a golf course where the ground was fully intended to be utilized strategically, would you do the outrageous rumpled look we've seen in recent posts?

If you designed a Redan whereby you expect the ball to be brought in off an off-green bank...would you rumple it?

If you designed a green with an open front with the intent of encouraging a grounded approach...would you rumple it?

Am I over-thinking strategy and the need for the ground to work in harmony with the rest of the course, design and maintenance included?

Joe

Joe

I am not sure why one wouldn't want rumpled fairways.  There isn't much point in a ground game if the best angle of approach doesn't have to be earned.  I harp on all the time about reducing bunkers.  How else does my ideal work unless the land is rumpled?  One still has the option of flying (even short shots) or bumping shots.  We often focus on larger scale rumples  or off-shoots of dunes, but the wee micro rumples can be just as effective. 

You just never know if you are gonna catch an upslope and look stupid.  So, do you bump it, putt it or fly it?  These are a few of the ultimate questions in golf probably because tehre is no right answer.


Ciao

[Joe Hancock]

Eric and Sean,

Thanks for the pictures. It helps with the discussion.

Sean,

I can't imagine taking my chances on the ground in that picture you posted. There's no way to predict an outcome, so it becomes a game of chance. Am I not looking at it in totality?

Thanks guys,

Joe

[Sean_A]

Eric and Sean,

Thanks for the pictures. It helps with the discussion.

Sean,

I can't imagine taking my chances on the ground in that picture you posted. There's no way to predict an outcome, so it becomes a game of chance. Am I not looking at it in totality?

Thanks guys,

Joe

Joe

A load depends on how good one is with spinning shorts shots off firm ground, one's lie, the lie of the land, the wind and where the flag is.  For sure, if one chooses the ground route there is some chance involved, but experience and skill greatly reduce the element of chance. In others words, getting up and down is far from a matter of luck.  It is amazing to watch how skillful old Kington members are with this shot on the ground.  It takes a while to figure out what to do at Kington.  I am only a novice, but I am getting there. 

Ciao

[JC Jones]

I like rumpled when it fits with the surrounding terrain such that it looks natural. 

For example, in the 2nd or 3rd picture in Eric's post there is a farm with a house at the top of the hill.  The "rumpling" in the course looks completely out of place against the big rolling slope that frames it. 

If you are going to create "rumpling" it should look like its been there, otherwise it looks more manufactured than a flatter alternative.  The best courses, as has been pointed out by Tom Doak in the past are the ones where you cant tell which features were there before the course and which were created.  Part of achieving that goal is making sure that the features you do create fit in with the natural landscape.

[Mike Nuzzo]

In the modern game, who runs it up from over 60 yards or under 200 yards?

It depends on how the hole is designed.
If percentage play is to run it up than the smart player will.
Just because most can't doesn't mean it should be ignored.

Joe
Don't give up just because it is overwatered TODAY.
It won't be in 10-40 years.

I like the rumples to vary on and between the holes.
I like the ones we built on #10.
I like them best when the rumples and the green look like they are related.

[Jud_T]

nuff said:

[Eric Smith]

I like them best when the rumples and the green look like they are related.

Bingo Mike.

[Joe Hancock]

Don't give up just because it is overwatered TODAY.
It won't be in 10-40 years.

This is a great quote. Mind if I use it from time to time? 

Joe

[Kirk Gill]

JC - you said "I like rumpled when it fits with the surrounding terrain such that it looks natural."

what if the terrain is naturally rumpled, but the surrounding vistas are rolling and smooth, like in that picture? In that case would you recommend flattening out the rumple? Is "looks natural" more imporant than "is natural?"

[JC Jones]

JC - you said "I like rumpled when it fits with the surrounding terrain such that it looks natural."

what if the terrain is naturally rumpled, but the surrounding vistas are rolling and smooth, like in that picture? In that case would you recommend flattening out the rumple? Is "looks natural" more imporant than "is natural?"

No, and you are absolutely on point.  Natural is much more important than looks natural.  I was operating (perhaps wrongly) on the assumption that those rumples were manufactured.

I will modify my post to say that I am down with natural rumples (always) and that I am down with unnatural rumples to the extent they blend in with the terrain present before the course was built.

Thanks, Kirk.