The thin line between “wild and fun” to “crazy and stupid” greens?

[PCCraig]

It seems that an obvious trend in modern design are greens that feature big and bold shapes with dramatic contours. Tom Doak’s greens at Old MacDonald, Ballyneal, and Lost Dunes are praised by many on GCA and in the golf world as “wild and fun.” Perhaps as an extension of the modern minimalist movement in golf course architecture, but other architects have also begun to err on the side of heavily contoured greens. Most notably, Jack Nicklaus’ firm has built what many have called “crazy and stupid” greens at courses such as Dove Mountain and Harbor Shores.

What is the difference between the greens that Doak, Hanse, & C&C create and are generally accepted and those that are built by other modern firms that go too far?

At which point are architects just adding “contour for contour’s sake?”

How important is restraint in the design of greens?

At what hole yardage does the architect start to smooth out contours of a green to make the hole more “fair?”

For reference, links to pictures of Lost Dunes as well as Harbor Shores, 10 miles apart situated on similar sites:

Lost Dunes: http://www.golfarchitecturepictures.com/Web%20Galleries/USA/Michigan/Lost%20Dunes/index.html
Harbor Shores: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?topic=44963.0

[JC Jones]

What is the difference between the greens that Doak, Hanse, & C&C create and are generally accepted and those that are built by other modern firms that go too far?

The politically correct answer is that the contours on a Doak, Hanse and C&C course are either natural, look natural or blend in with the surrounding natural environment and the wild contours by the others do not.  Therefore, the greens are wild and fun rather than contrived and unrestrained. 

I will agree with you that it is often difficult to understand why a course like Kingsley Club is criticized for lack of restraint and courses by the architects you listed above are celebrated.

[Keith OHalloran]

Pat, an interesting aspect of your questions, is that Tom Doak and Jack Nicklaus worked on Sebonack together. There are various conversations in regard to the severity of those greens and who did what with them. It would be interesting to see if the designer himself could influence whether they were thought of as "wild and fun" category or the "crazy" category. In other words, have some designers build up a bank of credibility that others have not? If someone played Sebonack and was told it was Tom Doak that designed the greens, could they come out saying they were "wild and fun" but if that same person played and believed that Nicklaus did them, could he say they were "crazy"

[Jim Colton]

Pat,

  It's an interesting topic and one that I've been thinking a lot about lately.  I think the key factor is the amount of thought that goes into the contours and how they fit with the surrounds.  I think wild contours can be a blast if they are done right, but are absolutely no fun when done wrong, which is probably why it's such a fine line.  For me, I think it comes down to one thing -- even if I'm on the worst place on the green relative to the pin position, I want the opportunity for a well-executed lag putt to give me a 4-6 footer left for par, even if the consequences of a less-than-well executed lag putt are far worse.  I can live with that.  I enjoy that.  Where it goes wrong is when the contours lead to an automatic three-putt.

[Matt_Ward]

Keith:

Certain fan clubs exist on this site -- certain people get more leeway with such efforts while others get panned as being excessive.

Nicklaus did excellent greens at Red Ledges in UT but from some certain quarters there are people who see the greens there as excessive. Candidly, if someone played the course and did not know Jack did the course and for the sake of an experiment a substitute preferred archie were involved the likely reaction would be different.

The sad reality is that people need to move away from blanket assertions for certain designers -- the fallacy that whatever certain people do is marvelous -- while what others do is over-the-top.

[JNC Lyon]

Crazy and Stupid = Greens that are not "wild and fun"

 

[Jud_T]

Pat,

Interesting topic.  Couple of points.  In general the movement back towards more interesting green contours is a good one.  It's only the crazy speeds that some club players have become accustomed to which makes some contours OTT.  Particularly for club members who play the same set of greens perhaps hundreds of times, interesting greens are the main thing that keep it fun over long periods.  I also think you need to look at the course as a whole and not individual greens.  A few holes with wild contours are a lot of fun.  18 of them becomes goofy golf.  I don't think there's a proscribed distance at which one must provide an "easier" surface.  Nothing wrong with one hole that requires a very challenging up & down for par.  Side topic-why are naturally found wild greens cool and man-made large contours silly?

[Adam Lawrence]

Part of the answer lies in who is playing the golf course and when. The reason Dove Mountain took stick was that the first anyone heard of it was the Tour going there. Greens that are fun for travelling golfers when they run at sensible speeds can easily be at the centre of a big row if they're cranked up to 13 feet and the Tour comes to town.

[John Shimony]

I played Lederach in PA this past weekend and the greens and their surrounds were "wild and fun".  Nice job,  Mr. Moran.  Something I noticed was with slower green speeds - in the morning dew in my case, or just slow greens as a course setup - one cannot take advantage of some banks and mounds to work their putts close to holes.  Bold greens need to be fast without being OTT.

[Sean_A]

I am wondering if there ever was a trend for wild and fun greens to get back to.  Most classic courses I know of don't have wild greens, they may have a few which are extreme and maybe ott, but most are just fun.  I have yet to see a course where I thought the greens were crazy and stupid.  The last modern set I saw that I really liked was at Lederach, but oddly, they were running too slowly to shine.  Get those at 9ish and they would be lovely.  Much more than 10ish and I suspect many of the greens would be silly.  This is my fear wild greens with the speeds of today.  Given the climate for quick greens imo its best to temper them somewhat, but throw in a handful of zingers.  For those that like ground game options courses, I would also say that when greens become quick it is hard to get the right meld of fairway speed and green speed.  When the two are far apart in speed the course won't play as well as it might.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

I don't think it has much at all to do with what's perceived as "natural" v. "man made", at least any more than anything in architecture is less accepted when it's taken to be artificial.  For the record, I've built maybe 3 or 4 greens out of 30 golf courses that were really and truly natural ... the other 500+ of them required SOME manipulation [often not too much] to get the slopes within reason and/or to make them more interesting.

Of course, the thin line you describe is a moving target, if the green speeds are going to change from owner to owner or from situation to situation.  As Adam suggests, I think it would be next to impossible to create "wild and fun" greens for an owner who wants his greens to roll 12 or 13 on a regular basis.

[At Sebonack, Mr. Pascucci swore they wouldn't be that fast everyday, but that's where he tells his superintendent to get them during the season.]

My feeling is that is where Mr. Nicklaus is having trouble now.  He wants to get wild and fun greens, because he understands it's the only way to make the course difficult for the pros anymore, and because he is more into fun golf than he used to be.  But he is working for owners who want 13 on the Stimp, whereas most of my owners are fine with the idea of 9.5 to 10.5 on a regular basis and 12 to 13 only for a two-day event.

The other half of the equation is that when you are building in such short game challenges, you have to have a good enough short game to imagine every shot that might occur and to address the potential problems while you are building them.  If you were going to hand that assignment to someone, would you hand it to Ben Crenshaw or to Jack Nicklaus?  Building severe greens requires a much greater time commitment by the architect, because you are opening yourself up to criticism in a 3-D medium that can only be judged on site.

I used to have a pretty good short game myself, and I can still decide as well as anyone whether my greens are "crazy and stupid" or not.  I know some people will call them that, regardless of what I think; but in most cases, it's because they have a poor short game, or a poor imagination as to how to position their approaches and/or play their recovery shots to give themselves a bit more buffer for error.

And Matt, I don't think it's all about whose fan club you're in.  I don't agree with that at all.  Perhaps Bill and Ben and I get more of the benefit of the doubt than others, because we've done it before ... but in the end, if you're not pointing to some of our greens and showing us where they are too severe, then it's not bias.  If others' courses can withstand similar scrutiny, then they'll be good to go, too.

[Mike Nuzzo]

The broader trend has been to make them flatter and faster.
If an architect is going to experiment - they had best be on site to watch them develop.

It is an art - not everyone is an "artist".

Part of the answer lies in who is playing the golf course and when.

It also depends on who is maintaining the course.

[Steve Lang]

  Do they fit the circumstances or is the circus in town?

[Peter Pallotta]

While impossible to do, I'd love to be able to compare qualitatively the experiences of golfers in the 1920s playing on courses/greens by the likes of MacKenzie and Maxwell with golfers today playing on courses/greens by our top designers.  

Of course, besides being impossible, the exercise would probably also be futile, i.e. it wouldn't be of any practical use. So much has changed -- technology, maintenances practices etc - but probably nothing in golf has changed so much as golfers themselves, and their expectations.

I can't imagine what today's golfers would say if they had to play the modern equivalent of Crystal Downs in the 1920s, played at 6,600 yards with the clubs and balls and turf conditions of that day, and hitting tee/approach shots into those greens.

But if that experience is a 'standard' by which we shoud measure/judge the playing experience of today's golfers, it's also hard for me to imagine any green being 'crazy'.

Peter

[JC Jones]

While impossible to do, I'd love to be able to compare qualitatively the experiences of golfers in the 1920s playing on courses/greens by the likes of MacKenzie and Maxwell with golfers today playing on courses/greens by our top designers.  

Of course, besides being impossible, the exercise would probably also be futile, i.e. it wouldn't be of any practical use. So much has changed -- technology, maintenances practices etc - but probably nothing in golf has changed so much as golfers themselves, and their expectations.

I can't imagine what today's golfers would say if they had to play the modern equivalent of Crystal Downs in the 1920s, played at 6,600 yards with the clubs and balls and turf conditions of that day, and hitting tee/approach shots into those greens.

But if that experience is a 'standard' by which we shoud measure/judge the playing experience of today's golfers, it's also hard for me to imagine any green being 'crazy'.

Peter

Pina Colada,

The greens are likely faster today at Crystal Downs than they were 70+ years ago and I've always found them to be a great joy to play on.  The turf conditions were probably more favorable for a golfer at Crystal Downs as it is more likely the turf was firmer and faster than it is today.  The times I've been lucky enough to play Crystal Downs, the turf has been quite lush, particularly the summer rounds.

[Chris Buie]

A Kyle Henderson photo of Tot Hill.  I'll let you decide which category this green goes in.

[JESII]

The other half of the equation is that when you are building in such short game challenges, you have to have a good enough short game to imagine every shot that might occur and to address the potential problems while you are building them.  If you were going to hand that assignment to someone, would you hand it to Ben Crenshaw or to Jack Nicklaus?  Building severe greens requires a much greater time commitment by the architect, because you are opening yourself up to criticism in a 3-D medium that can only be judged on site.

I used to have a pretty good short game myself, and I can still decide as well as anyone whether my greens are "crazy and stupid" or not.  I know some people will call them that, regardless of what I think; but in most cases, it's because they have a poor short game, or a poor imagination as to how to position their approaches and/or play their recovery shots to give themselves a bit more buffer for error.

Tom,

Isn't this passage of yours the same as the old line from Player or Nicklaus about knowing what a good shot is?

[jonathan_becker]

Chris Buie,

IMO, The 5th hole at Tot Hill Farm is ruined by the green area.  The hole is in a scenic setting, the fairway has great width, there's great elevation changes, and then once you cross the creek it becomes ridiculous.  Just looking at your photo is evidence enough.

[PCCraig]

The obvious factor with which I forgot to mention in my first post was the speed of greens today vs. historically. Sure, fast greens (13+ stimp) can make almost any green harder right away.  But is it impossible for undulating greens to be playable even high speeds and remain interesting without going over the top? How about Augusta National…big undulating greens which are kept at high speed during the Masters (and toned down quite a bit for regular play…but not a ton) but tends to “work” for most players? 

But for argument’s sake let’s assume that we’re in a maintenance “vacuum” and that all green speeds are the same…and just discussing the design.

I think it’s safe to say that many on here enjoy playing the Macdonald / Raynor School of design partially because of the fantastic template green complexes. What strikes me about those classic greens is that the design is dominated by one elaborate feature. For example, the barritz has the swale; the redan features a sweeping right-to-left tilt that calls for a distinct shot type, a thumbprint green, etc…  These are simple, yet bold, features that dictate strategy throughout the playing of the entire hole.

Instead of focusing on one distinct feature, today’s greens seem to feature a number of swales, humps, & bumps and can need a roadmap to figure out all the different pin positions. These can be fun due to the sheer amount of information a player needs to process in order to hit a lag putt or a chip, but at what point does that become too much?

I raised the comparison of Lost Dunes to Harbor Shores for a reason. I played them one day apart two weeks ago and it gave me a great opportunity to compare two courses which share similar traits:

*Lost Dunes and Harbor Shores are 10 miles away from each other in Southwestern Michigan
*Both feature sandy soil due to the natural surroundings
*Their respective properties would be classified as “industrial” as LD was an old sand quarry bisected by *I-94 and Harbor Shores was built using urban land once used by Whirlpool
*Both feature a dune within their design.
*Both are known for their “wild” greens.

I played them one day apart two weeks ago and it gave me a great opportunity to compare the two sets of greens and as to why one set works, and one doesn’t.

The perfect example of the differences is evidenced by the comparison of the Par-5 4th  hole at Lost Dunes, and the Par-5 10th hole at Harbor Shores. Both are short par-5s with wide landing areas off the tee and being easily reachable by many better players with even high handicaps being able to get their second shots within pitching distance. The obvious strategy is that while the player can hit their second shot directly at the green with the hopes of a makeable eagle putt or chip, if the player does not succeed, it will be one very hard up and down for birdie. However a player that knows what lies ahead can lay up to a comfortable spot and test his or her luck by hitting a full shot to a tucked pin.

I went for both greens in two, both times reaching the green. At the 10th hole at Harbor Shores, I was in the front fairway presented with a back pin…behind a 10ft wall of a green which was really the largest swale I’ve seen on a green. There, I had one option…either hit a putt hard and hope it gets up the hill or flop a wedge up there and hope it sticks in the shallow landing area.

At Lost Dunes, the pin was located middle left on a little shelf between the flat front part of the green and the quasi-punchbowl back portion of the green. I hit my shot which ran up to the back portion of the green and faced a putt that to a player that had never seen the green before looked like you would have no option other than to putt the ball towards the ledge hoping it would trickle down the slope and somehow stay on the green. However, I remembered what Tom Doak had said during the Midwest Mashie and hit my putt about 45* left, allowing the ball to pick up a gentle slope pushing it further left, then grabbing a separate slope which swung the ball back right toward the hole. Tom’s words were something to the effect that “the best greens give you two options to attack each pin.”

Another observation that I made was that while at HS I faced numerous 3-4 footers which I had to play a sizable amount of break on, most of my shorter putts at LD where somewhat flat and makeable…almost making up for all the wild long pitches and lag putts over shelves and ridges.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

Isn't this passage of yours the same as the old line from Player or Nicklaus about knowing what a good shot is?

Jim:

Yes, it is.  Two can play at that game.  

However, it is a bit different of a statement coming from me than from, say, Gary Player.  I am not a world class player, so if I say that a certain green is playable for me, and getting the results I intended, then it should follow logically that it ought to be okay for any world class player.  It may not follow that it works well for players worse than me (if there are any left).

Whereas Gary Player is usually saying that a certain hole designed by someone else DOESN'T work for him ... which doesn't really prove much of anything, does it?

[Emil Weber]

there is no line.


Oh, maybe that Tot Hill photo got me thinking 

[Tom_Doak]

Pat,

Another interesting part of your comparison of Lost Dunes and Harbor Shores is that the two greens in question were probably built by the same guy ... Jerame Miller, who shaped all the greens at Lost Dunes back when he worked for Landscapes Unlimited, and who is now an associate and shaper for Nicklaus Design.  So while I am sure that Jack has never been to Lost Dunes, I suspect the idea to do a similar green probably came from Jerame.

He is a very talented guy, but when he is reporting to different guys you may well see different results.

[Mark_F]

This green at my club always causes a fair amount of consternation amongst some.  Three strong tiers, steep slope from back to front, at the end of a long par five.
                             

Perhaps it all depends upon one's mindset.  It's good fun, with a lot of options if you miss, all varying depending on where the pin is.  Pretty good green for a par five. 

[Jason Topp]

I struggle to define this beyond "I know it when I see it."  Here is my effort which probably could be improved with some open source input:

I generally prefer undulating greens that have a general theme to the green as a whole (with interesting variations - usually spines or slopes away from side bunkers) rather than sections or worse - random humps and hollows.    I find approach shots most enjoyable when I know I should bail out to one side or the other, but want to try and hit it close and thereby take the associated risks.

By contrast, as a general rule, sectioned greens are almost impossible for most if they are firm and a lawn dart game if they are soft.  It is pretty difficult to size the sections such that they provide the right level of challenge for a wide variety of players.

I have played a couple of courses where the greens seemd to be random collections of moguls.  There is nothing more frustrating than hitting the middle of the green on a 430 yard par four only to realize that I will either make the approach putt or have a long return.  I don't mind being placed in that situation if I can anticipate it based on information available before I hit the shot but in some rare cases, I have not been able to discern the challenge until it is too late.  

[Jon Wiggett]

Tom,

Isn't this passage of yours the same as the old line from Player or Nicklaus about knowing what a good shot is?

Jim:

Yes, it is.  Two can play at that game.  

However, it is a bit different of a statement coming from me than from, say, Gary Player.  I am not a world class player, so if I say that a certain green is playable for me, and getting the results I intended, then it should follow logically that it ought to be okay for any world class player.  It may not follow that it works well for players worse than me (if there are any left).

Whereas Gary Player is usually saying that a certain hole designed by someone else DOESN'T work for him ... which doesn't really prove much of anything, does it?

Tom,

do you mean that because Ben C has a better short game than Jack N then Jack will build more playable greens? Maybe this is the same line of thinking as using the village idiot

Jon