Without the greens, the architecture interest is lost.

[JNC Lyon]

I walked Banff Springs a couple of weeks ago and obviously was stunned by the sheer beauty of the place...

but something strange happen while walking.

I walk the first hole (not the original first) look at the first green and go: pretty flat, maybe the hole was intended as a breather in Thompson's mind...
Then reach the second green: Ok steep in the front... must fly your way to the back pins.
Third green's really good even tough it appears flat.
Fourth hole... flat again... where are the Thompson greens.

then I talk to Mr Burrows, the super, and he told me about the fact that Les Furber redid the greens in 1995...

after that, my interest for the architecture was gone.. I mean, without the greens, the bunkering is just a visual feature.

Have you ever felt such a thing... a course without its greens would be like alcohol-free whisky... what'sthe point

I totally agree.  Imagine Woking or Merion without their current greens.  Those courses would even be near the top tier of golf courses.

The real travesty is the destruction of a course like Banff.  Why would they re-do the old Thompson greens?  I remember reading about this course from the original World Atlas of Golf.  It inspired me like few others in that book.  It is still high on my list of courses to see.  If a course can inspire like that from a routing map and a picture, why would anyone want or need to change it?

JNC

Yes, the greens at Woking and Merion are good.  But in the case of Woking it doesn't strike me that the quality of the greens lift Woking to the true cream of the crop in London.  That is left for courses with a bit more subtlety.  Undulating greens doen't equal top quality. 

Ciao   

To each his own on what constitutes a great set of greens.  But wouldn't you agree that a top quality London course (Huntercombe? Swinley Forest? I honestly don't know your favorite London courses) is top quality because of the greens, be they of subtle greatness or dramatic greatness?

JNC

I think thats my point.  No, I don't think the greens of the courses you mentioned are the sole or primary reason for these courses being of quality.  A golf course is a marriage of the routing (in which I would include green sites), the shot strategies, the terrain and the maintenance practices to allow the strategies to be fully realized.  IMO, the entire concept of protecting a golf course at the greens has been totally over-blown and simplified as part of the minimalist mantra.  There is no doubt that sort of design concept is important and vital, but we must remember that that a high percentage of shots take place nowhere near a green and that even for shots coming into greens it often doesn't matter a tosh if the green is undulating or not.  The art of subtle design has damn near been erased by well meaning archies who are as concerned with creating a framed vista with pretty hazards as they are with the strategy of the hole. 

Ciao

Sean, that's an awesome post.  I might not agree with all of what you said, but I think I have a lot more to learn about GCA.  I think just about anyone on here could learn a lot from reading that post.

[George Pazin]

IMO, the entire concept of protecting a golf course at the greens has been totally over-blown and simplified as part of the minimalist mantra.  There is no doubt that sort of design concept is important and vital, but we must remember that that a high percentage of shots take place nowhere near a green and that even for shots coming into greens it often doesn't matter a tosh if the green is undulating or not.

Couldn't disagree with this more...

I'll start a thread in the next day or two to elaborate.

 

[Sean_A]

I walked Banff Springs a couple of weeks ago and obviously was stunned by the sheer beauty of the place...

but something strange happen while walking.

I walk the first hole (not the original first) look at the first green and go: pretty flat, maybe the hole was intended as a breather in Thompson's mind...
Then reach the second green: Ok steep in the front... must fly your way to the back pins.
Third green's really good even tough it appears flat.
Fourth hole... flat again... where are the Thompson greens.

then I talk to Mr Burrows, the super, and he told me about the fact that Les Furber redid the greens in 1995...

after that, my interest for the architecture was gone.. I mean, without the greens, the bunkering is just a visual feature.

Have you ever felt such a thing... a course without its greens would be like alcohol-free whisky... what'sthe point

I totally agree.  Imagine Woking or Merion without their current greens.  Those courses would even be near the top tier of golf courses.

The real travesty is the destruction of a course like Banff.  Why would they re-do the old Thompson greens?  I remember reading about this course from the original World Atlas of Golf.  It inspired me like few others in that book.  It is still high on my list of courses to see.  If a course can inspire like that from a routing map and a picture, why would anyone want or need to change it?

JNC

Yes, the greens at Woking and Merion are good.  But in the case of Woking it doesn't strike me that the quality of the greens lift Woking to the true cream of the crop in London.  That is left for courses with a bit more subtlety.  Undulating greens doen't equal top quality.  

Ciao    

To each his own on what constitutes a great set of greens.  But wouldn't you agree that a top quality London course (Huntercombe? Swinley Forest? I honestly don't know your favorite London courses) is top quality because of the greens, be they of subtle greatness or dramatic greatness?

JNC

I think thats my point.  No, I don't think the greens of the courses you mentioned are the sole or primary reason for these courses being of quality.  A golf course is a marriage of the routing (in which I would include green sites), the shot strategies, the terrain and the maintenance practices to allow the strategies to be fully realized.  IMO, the entire concept of protecting a golf course at the greens has been totally over-blown and simplified as part of the minimalist mantra.  There is no doubt that sort of design concept is important and vital, but we must remember that that a high percentage of shots take place nowhere near a green and that even for shots coming into greens it often doesn't matter a tosh if the green is undulating or not.  The art of subtle design has damn near been erased by well meaning archies who are as concerned with creating a framed vista with pretty hazards as they are with the strategy of the hole.  

Ciao

Sean, that's an awesome post.  I might not agree with all of what you said, but I think I have a lot more to learn about GCA.  I think just about anyone on here could learn a lot from reading that post.

John

You don't need to take pity on an old man.  Tell me how it really is.  

BTW, for future reference, at this point in time my favourite London course is WOKING.  I love the place - tee hee.

George

Knock yerself out.

Ciao

[JESII]

George and Sean,

I highlighted that same portion in my mind in hopes of digging a little deeper to just what is meant.

I think I agree with Sean if he's saying undulation for undulations sake is poor design...but I disagree that a high percentage of shots take place nowhere near the green, or that every shot shouldn't have the green in mind, so long as you expect to get to the green in one more than regulation typically.

I think there is a way to be subtle and all inclusive...

[Michael Blake]

I think there is a way to be subtle and all inclusive...

I agree Jim.
And I think it takes a thoughful architect to pull it off.

[JNC Lyon]

I guess I am the only one here who appreciated Sean's post.  I was serious Sean, I did not really have any good answer for that post.  I've always been an advocate for defending par exclusively at the greens, but I see know that this viewpoint might be close-minded.  How many modern courses are really subtle and rely on the LAND more than anything?

Of course, this is all very ironic, because we all know Sean's favorite course is Kington, which has approximately 2,000 feet of elevation change.

[Richard Choi]

To go along with the greens is possibly the worst bunker sand I have ever experienced. I played last weekend in the CGSA Fall Field day and after 3 "plugged" lies, I lost total interest in the golf course.  Apparently when they replaced the sand in 2004( I believe), due to budget restraints at the time, they ended up choosing a sand from Northern Alberta.  The sand particles are round which never allows the sand to set up or firm up.  Balls were plugging all day long and it seemed that there was 10" of sand everywhere including the slopes?!?

Shouldn't bunkers play like hazards? Do you expect to have perfect lie in a bunker? Doesn't that kinda defeats the purpose of having a bunker?

[Ian Andrew]

Shouldn't bunkers play like hazards? Do you expect to have perfect lie in a bunker? Doesn't that kinda defeats the purpose of having a bunker?

Richard,

I played Banff Springs this year too.
When your shoes fill with sand while taking a stance, there's a problem.
Bob and Fairmont know they have an issue.

[Sean_A]

George and Sean,

I highlighted that same portion in my mind in hopes of digging a little deeper to just what is meant.

I think I agree with Sean if he's saying undulation for undulations sake is poor design...but I disagree that a high percentage of shots take place nowhere near the green, or that every shot shouldn't have the green in mind, so long as you expect to get to the green in one more than regulation typically.

I think there is a way to be subtle and all inclusive...

Jim

I am not saying undulation is good or bad.  I am saying there can be good greens without using undulations as the trump card.  Again, its the in your face architecture which grabs the headlines for most and much of the time it needn't be this way for a set of greens to be considered good.  As I stated above I like undulations (even to the extreme cases) as much as the next guy, but I probably like the more subtle stuff more than the next guy.  Variety, variety, variety.  

John

I think it is well known that I am particularly fond of work which gets the most out of an average or poor property.   So yes, Kington is certainly one of my favourite places to play.  I don't know what the elevation change is, but it is more than ideal for good golf yet Hutchison handled the land with an ease which would put most modern archies to shame.  I think the simplicity of the design and the brass tacks maintenance approach of the club (no small part of the my admiration for Kington) are a wonderful testament to grade level golf.  The ironic part is the course really is about the approaches.  The green surrounds contain the only shaping, the fairways are wide and there are no bunkers.  Of course, there is the wind and the slopes of Bradnor Hill...    

Ciao

[JNC Lyon]

Sean,

My next trip to the UK will include a trip to Kington, no questions asked.