Without the greens, the architecture interest is lost.

[Philippe Binette]

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

[Gary Daughters]

It's nay gawf.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Penguin,

Not only were the original greens at Banff rebuilt, the new ones are built ON TOP of the old ones. So, elevations are different as well.

True story. I don't know all of the details, but understand Parks Canada (and/or another authority) had a problem with disturbing and removing "contaminated" material from the old greens within the National Park. So, again, the new greens are built on top of the old ones.

This greens reconstruction and the change of hole sequence is a relatively unfortunate circumstance, at Banff.

[Duane Sharpe]

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?!?

Honestly, it was such a dissappointing experience to play at such a highly rated golf course with un-memorable greens and terrible sand.

However, I am still blown away at how they could route and construct such a golf course back in 1928 in the mountains. What a feat!

The view, (original) routing and conditioning deserve to be top 5 in Canada. The greens complexes and sand ruined my expectations.

sharpee

[Jim Nugent]

What were the greens like before Furber rebuilt them? 

[Jeff_Mingay]

Sharpe,

Knowing your golf game, I'm surprised you hit into a bunker at Banff  

Jim,

I don't know if there's much detail info. - ie plans and photos - to give good indication of exactly what the original greens were "like". There might be someone out there who played the original greens, who might remember some detail?

[Adam Clayman]

Jim, Jeff. I recall seeing an old picture of home hole green. In my mind it was several tiers almost staircase. I was not alone in sensing Sitwell park simalarities.       For those prefer Banff to Jasper Furber's alterations make the comparison not as close as they think.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Adam,

I agree. Jasper is a better course today; even "back in the day" - before the greens reconstruction and the change of sequence at Banff - it would have been close, in my opinion.

I love Jasper.

[Ian Andrew]

Jim, Jeff. I recall seeing an old picture of home hole green. In my mind it was several tiers almost staircase. I was not alone in sensing Sitwell park simalarities.       For those prefer Banff to Jasper Furber's alterations make the comparison not as close as they think.

Adam,

Current 18th or original 18th?

The current was rebuilt by Bill Robinson as a four tier green - I can still remmember that green from my trip in the early 1990's.

[Philippe Binette]

Seems like an infinite thread could be started on Banff.... like a Merion one.

but my point is, have you seen a interesting looking course with strategic features but average greens and go: Well what's the point of all the strategy if the greens are not strong enough to hold it up

[Sean_A]

Seems like an infinite thread could be started on Banff.... like a Merion one.

but my point is, have you seen a interesting looking course with strategic features but average greens and go: Well what's the point of all the strategy if the greens are not strong enough to hold it up

Philippe

While I wouldn't quite as far as you, there are certainly a few courses I know which are badly let down by their greens.  I can still enjoy the courses and wonder what might have been. 

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

There are lots of modern courses which are let down by their greens, as Kelly was just beginning to enumerate.  You just don't play that many modern courses.

[Brent Hutto]

I guess that's in part because modern players would rather lose a ball in a hazard than three-putt.

[Ian Andrew]

Not only were the original greens at Banff rebuilt, the new ones are built ON TOP of the old ones. So, elevations are different as well.

True story. I don't know all of the details, but understand Parks Canada (and/or another authority) had a problem with disturbing and removing "contaminated" material from the old greens within the National Park. So, again, the new greens are built on top of the old ones.

Jeff,

Most greens were already rebuilt before that by Bill Robinson.
They were allowed to remove the soil, but it was cost prohibitive, so they went right over the top.

[Sean_A]

Sean:

There are lots of modern courses which are let down by their greens, as Kelly was just beginning to enumerate.  You just don't play that many modern courses.

Tom

Its true, I play very few modern courses (and to be honest there are very few which really entice me to travel and see), but I am not one who gets much value from distinguishing between modern and classical courses.  Though I do tend to prefer GB&I greens because at their best they are often visually quite subtle with a handful of zingers thrown in for good measure.  That suits me fine.  So long as there is some interest in the greens and surrounds I am much more concerned with the playability of a course.  IE good terrain, width, sensible green speeds, sensible bunkering & other hazards and a good mix of characteristics which aren't classed as hazards by the rules.  If these other elements are present I can take rather subdued greens as a visitor.  So I guess my threshold is much lower than others.  Off the top of my head I can't think of a single course I wouldn't replay because of the green designs.

Ciao      

[George Freeman]

I guess that's in part because modern players would rather lose a ball in a hazard than three-putt.

Very sad, but very true...

Ian - had you seen the course prior to the Bill Robinson changes?  If yes, how different were the greens?

[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?

[Jeff_Mingay]

Not only were the original greens at Banff rebuilt, the new ones are built ON TOP of the old ones. So, elevations are different as well.

True story. I don't know all of the details, but understand Parks Canada (and/or another authority) had a problem with disturbing and removing "contaminated" material from the old greens within the National Park. So, again, the new greens are built on top of the old ones.

Jeff,

Most greens were already rebuilt before that by Bill Robinson.
They were allowed to remove the soil, but it was cost prohibitive, so they went right over the top.

As I said, I don't know all the details... just remember that the existing greens are built on top of the originals.

Thanks Ian  

[George Pazin]

I had this discussion with friends recently about Bethpage Black. Even after much discussion, I still can't understand their thinking (which was basically that BB is as good as any course in the world tee to green, but the greens are too boring to make the course truly special). I guess it's something you have to see to understand.

[JNC Lyon]

The greens on any golf course are critical because they challenge all golfers.  Every golfer must face the greens at some point during a round.  Tee-to-green hazards will only affect some of the golfers playing the course because of disparities in skill, distance, and shot selection.

[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   

[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?

[Rob Miller]

I hate to admit that Philippe is right (he is), but Banff regardless remains a special place and with a proper restoration could be very special.  Banff Springs, even with mediocre greens, still has serious merit. 

[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

[Ian Andrew]

Ian - had you seen the course prior to the Bill Robinson changes?  If yes, how different were the greens?

I'm old, but not that old.

Before Furbur - yes I saw them before and after.