[JC Jones]

I was fortunate enough to have some great conversation with fellow GCA'ers at the Pine Crest on Tuesday night.  When discussing a recent play of #2, one of the participants articulated something that I have been fixated on ever since.

When describing his preferences he said he liked golf courses that required a variety of shots and required a golfer to use every club in his bag and in different ways.  He went on further to say that he wanted the contouring on the golf course to not only provide interest but to provide playing options for the golfer.  The contours should be available to use by the golfer as an alternative way of approaching the hole.

In his view of #2, the contouring on the greens was meant to be avoided by the golfer and not utilized by the golfer.  This caused a reduced number of options for the golfer and dictated the type of shots played.  Fewer options resulting in less variety as the recovery shot for missing was likely to be the same from hole to hole.

What struck me the most is that he was articulating something I have felt for a long time but was never able to communicate as clearly.  The reason why certain golf courses are great to me is that the contouring provides variety not just penalty.

[Peter Pallotta]

JC - I started a thread quite a while ago on Variation of Difficulty (not to be confused with a concept floated by the much-missed and respected Mark Bourgeois called VORD).   I wrote:

On an old thread an architect wrote: "What I'm trying to build is a variation of difficulty for recovery play, ranging from easy to tricky to damn-near-impossible.  I see that as a positive -- I see it as allowing players with differing short games to utilize their talents."

I have to admit that I've never looked for or noticed or paid attention to this aspect of golf course design; and when I think about courses I like, this criteria has never been on my radar screen let alone something I've used to judge a course.  And honestly, even now that I'm thinking about it, I can't imagine being able to notice this 'variation of difficulty'.

To this post of mine, responses included those by Mark Ferguson: "I think this concept is very important in terms of the overall quality of design, because it sorts out those who are thinking (and executing) properly from those who aren't."   The much missed and respected Scott Witter: "To me this thinking is most relevant in modern times with technology and length fighting the preservation of design integrity and the spirit of the game.  We have all beat to death the issue from the tee and those architects who don't worry too much about this aspect give appropriate attention to the short game, where overall, this seems to be the greatest opportunity as an equilizer and the element of great fun and creative interest.....This goes back to why so many great courses do not show their many faces until repeat play.  So much depends on any given day and moment depending on where your ball ends up."  And our own Tom Doak: "That is where I spend most of my time on-site, thinking about the various shots around the greens.  When that aspect is well thought out, it doesn't matter how the players got to where they are; it only matters whether they've given themselves a chance to hole a putt or get up and down, or put themselves in jail."

I don't know if this is what you are asking about, but i remember liking the responses.

Peter

[Ed Oden]

Shouldn't contours do both?

[JC Jones]

Shouldn't contours do both?

That's a great question.  Can you elaborate for me?

[Don_Mahaffey]

I like contours that are random. I think trying to figure out every possibility from every angle in every condition is just not possible. Sometimes you'll be short sided and have a side board or backboard, and sometimes you just have to try and bounce it just right off the bump or hollow in front of you. I also believe contours work best when one day they help and another they repel.

[JC Jones]

I agree, Don.  I don't think everything should be a punch bowl, then again, I don't think every green should just be a turtle back.  Neither would provide the variety I am seeking.

[Ed Oden]

Shouldn't contours do both?

That's a great question.  Can you elaborate for me?

Yes, I could.  But that would take effort.  Thankfully, Don read my mind and saved me from having to think for myself.

[JC Jones]

I'm glad to hear this.  I'd hate to have you hurt yourself.

[Ed Oden]

I'm glad to hear this.  I'd hate to have you hurt yourself.

It is a blessing.  I am the Sam Bowie of gca.com.

[Tom_Doak]

I also believe contours work best when one day they help and another they repel.

Don:

It was while trying to figure out how The Old Course at St. Andrews worked in reverse, that I realized the truth of your statement.  Every contour on a golf course has two faces ... the same slope you can't putt down from behind the hole, is a backstop as you are putting up the hill.  The wealth of short grass around the greens and the option to deliberately play beyond the hole and chip or putt back to it just makes it more obvious in St. Andrews.

A course like Pinehurst #2 challenges this premise, because they have located all of the greens on top of contours, and every slope around them is taking the ball away from the hole.  That's an extremely difficult formula, and it only works there because the rest of the golf course is relatively benign.

[JNC Lyon]

JC,

I think it is good to have a mix of contours that are to be used and to be avoided, but holes that incorporate contour utilization are much more interesting.  One of the things that was so fun about Prestwick was the set of greens were contour utilization was at a premium.  Many of those contours are random or pre-existing around these greens, but, as Don Mahaffey points out, these contours can often be used as backboards and sideboards to get the ball close from around the green or on an approach shot.  When at Prestwick, I spent at least 20 minutes each around the 15th, 16th, and 17th greens, experimenting with different clubs and shots off the usable contours.  Of course, each of these greens had contours to be avoided, but these were only effective because they combined with contours that could be utilized.

Contour utilization allows for more creativity, variety, and, most importantly, pure fun, especially around the greens.

[Kyle Harris]

I'm waiting for the architect that has the pair to throw a dead flat green at you people just for giggles.

[Sean_A]

I also believe contours work best when one day they help and another they repel.

Don:

It was while trying to figure out how The Old Course at St. Andrews worked in reverse, that I realized the truth of your statement.  Every contour on a golf course has two faces ... the same slope you can't putt down from behind the hole, is a backstop as you are putting up the hill.  The wealth of short grass around the greens and the option to deliberately play beyond the hole and chip or putt back to it just makes it more obvious in St. Andrews.

A course like Pinehurst #2 challenges this premise, because they have located all of the greens on top of contours, and every slope around them is taking the ball away from the hole.  That's an extremely difficult formula, and it only works there because the rest of the golf course is relatively benign.

For a contours to help one day and hurt the next it would seem the greens need to be on the large side and wider than normal fairways wouldn't hurt either.  It seems this is the same old story if we are gonna talk about variety.  

A correlation (kind of - sort of) of this contour theory also works on fairways with feeding bunkers.  You could even go one step further and with the idea have bunker placement that is in play one day, but not the next.  All of this is called random, but its really not random at all.

Ciao  

[Steve Kline]

I also believe contours work best when one day they help and another they repel.


A course like Pinehurst #2 challenges this premise, because they have located all of the greens on top of contours, and every slope around them is taking the ball away from the hole.  That's an extremely difficult formula, and it only works there because the rest of the golf course is relatively benign.

Tom - i do not quite agree with you here. I think your statement is for the most part true for approach shots. Although some greens (1, 4, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 18) are less repellent than the others. However i dont find your statement to be true for shiots around the green. For different parts of each green there are places to miss that will allow to use the slope of the green to slow your ball down instead of speeding it up. If you can get uphill chips and putts from off the green at #2 you will be much more succesfull getting up and down than if you miss the green where you have to go up and over the knobs and false edges. I have played the course enough to know where most of these spots are for most hole locations on most of the greens. The challenge is making sure you miss it in that spot if you miss the green. It is not as obvious as "do not short side yourself" or "miss left because you will have a big backboard." it takes a lot of time and rounds to figure this out on #2.

I do like a course like Ballyneal too where there are slopes that can kick your ball to the hole and slopes to kick it away.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I also believe contours work best when one day they help and another they repel.

Don:

It was while trying to figure out how The Old Course at St. Andrews worked in reverse, that I realized the truth of your statement.  Every contour on a golf course has two faces ... the same slope you can't putt down from behind the hole, is a backstop as you are putting up the hill.  The wealth of short grass around the greens and the option to deliberately play beyond the hole and chip or putt back to it just makes it more obvious in St. Andrews.

A course like Pinehurst #2 challenges this premise, because they have located all of the greens on top of contours, and every slope around them is taking the ball away from the hole.  That's an extremely difficult formula, and it only works there because the rest of the golf course is relatively benign.

For a contours to help one day and hurt the next it would seem the greens need to be on the large side and wider than normal fairways wouldn't hurt either.  It seems this is the same old story if we are gonna talk about variety.  

A correlation (kind of - sort of) of this contour theory also works on fairways with feeding bunkers.  You could even go one step further and with the idea have bunker placement that is in play one day, but not the next.  All of this is called random, but its really not random at all.

Ciao  

Sean,

Do you think Tom means differing conditions on different days?

I think he simply means that contours (especially on short grass around greens) by their nature have two sides. You land on one side, it means one thing, you land on the other it means something else entirely.

Contour utlization is of course the name of the game. If you can find one natural feature in or around a green site that shapes the strategy of the hole, then you're 90% of the way to creating an excellent golf hole. If you can find this on 18 holes, you're 90% of the way to shaping a world-class golf course.

[Sean_A]

I also believe contours work best when one day they help and another they repel.

Don:

It was while trying to figure out how The Old Course at St. Andrews worked in reverse, that I realized the truth of your statement.  Every contour on a golf course has two faces ... the same slope you can't putt down from behind the hole, is a backstop as you are putting up the hill.  The wealth of short grass around the greens and the option to deliberately play beyond the hole and chip or putt back to it just makes it more obvious in St. Andrews.

A course like Pinehurst #2 challenges this premise, because they have located all of the greens on top of contours, and every slope around them is taking the ball away from the hole.  That's an extremely difficult formula, and it only works there because the rest of the golf course is relatively benign.

For a contours to help one day and hurt the next it would seem the greens need to be on the large side and wider than normal fairways wouldn't hurt either.  It seems this is the same old story if we are gonna talk about variety.  

A correlation (kind of - sort of) of this contour theory also works on fairways with feeding bunkers.  You could even go one step further and with the idea have bunker placement that is in play one day, but not the next.  All of this is called random, but its really not random at all.

Ciao  

Sean,

Do you think Tom means differing conditions on different days?

I think he simply means that contours (especially on short grass around greens) by their nature have two sides. You land on one side, it means one thing, you land on the other it means something else entirely.

Contour utlization is of course the name of the game. If you can find one natural feature in or around a green site that shapes the strategy of the hole, then you're 90% of the way to creating an excellent golf hole. If you can find this on 18 holes, you're 90% of the way to shaping a world-class golf course.

Ally

No, I didn't think they were taking about changing daily conditions, but its part of the same way of designing imo.  Yes, it makes sense about contours, but contours work best in a larger space making them not always so obvious. 

Ciao

[Don_Mahaffey]

Sean,
Lots of grass to use large contours effectively is nice, but IMO, a lost art in the modern world of finish contractors who smooth it all out and make it look pretty is he use of small contours in small areas, especially around the greens. I love green complexes that look benign from the tee or approach but unfold as you walk up. It doesn't take a large internal green contour or bump in the collar to make chipping interesting. But with architects and contractors so focused on "high quality' work they pretty mush rub all the little stuff out and only focus on the larger features. 

[Tom_Doak]

Sean,
Lots of grass to use large contours effectively is nice, but IMO, a lost art in the modern world of finish contractors who smooth it all out and make it look pretty is he use of small contours in small areas, especially around the greens. I love green complexes that look benign from the tee or approach but unfold as you walk up. It doesn't take a large internal green contour or bump in the collar to make chipping interesting. But with architects and contractors so focused on "high quality' work they pretty mush rub all the little stuff out and only focus on the larger features. 

Don:

Some of that goes back to your discussion of soils.

When we are working with sand it is easy to leave in those little random contours, because we don't have to worry much about screwing up the surface drainage.  But if you are working in Georgia like some unfortunate architects, there is less scope for small contours because you always have to be sure you're not making a drainage pocket.

[Patrick Hodgdon]

I'm glad to hear this.  I'd hate to have you hurt yourself.

It is a blessing.  I am the Sam Bowie of gca.com.

Who's Sam Bowie? Sounds to me more like the Greg Oden of gca.com

[JNC Lyon]

I'm glad to hear this.  I'd hate to have you hurt yourself.

It is a blessing.  I am the Sam Bowie of gca.com.

Who's Sam Bowie? Sounds to me more like the Greg Oden of gca.com

Both are terrible draft selections by the hapless Trail Blazers.  I would wish either designation on any poster on this site!

[Wade Schueneman]

On many courses, even the most simple, the contours are there but are covered with rough. Once a TOC opens your eyes you are forever looking for ways to play the contours because of the sheer enjoyment of playing the shot. It is not always the lowest score you can make, sometimes it is getting the most enjoyment out of playing; the two don't always intersect.

Kelly,

I too generally prefer to simply engage a course and seek out its little secrets rather than attempting to master it by posting a low score.  IMHO, golf courses are there to be experienced and explored.

[JC Jones]

On many courses, even the most simple, the contours are there but are covered with rough. Once a TOC opens your eyes you are forever looking for ways to play the contours because of the sheer enjoyment of playing the shot. It is not always the lowest score you can make, sometimes it is getting the most enjoyment out of playing; the two don't always intersect.

Kelly,

I too generally prefer to simply engage a course and seek out its little secrets rather than attempting to master it by posting a low score.  IMHO, golf courses are there to be experienced and explored.

The man has spoken.  One of the great thinkers about golf we have on this site.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Sean,
Lots of grass to use large contours effectively is nice, but IMO, a lost art in the modern world of finish contractors who smooth it all out and make it look pretty is he use of small contours in small areas, especially around the greens. I love green complexes that look benign from the tee or approach but unfold as you walk up. It doesn't take a large internal green contour or bump in the collar to make chipping interesting. But with architects and contractors so focused on "high quality' work they pretty mush rub all the little stuff out and only focus on the larger features.  

Don:

Some of that goes back to your discussion of soils.

When we are working with sand it is easy to leave in those little random contours, because we don't have to worry much about screwing up the surface drainage.  But if you are working in Georgia like some unfortunate architects, there is less scope for small contours because you always have to be sure you're not making a drainage pocket.

Tom
Unfortunate and working don't seem to belong in the same sentence with golf architects. I think right about now most architects would welcome the chance to build a course on caliche if they had the chance.

Heavy soils or sand, I think there are still plenty of opportunity for the use of small contour. In heavy soils those contours may run with the slope, but I think that looks more natural anyhow as it seems most natural movement in clay is a result of water erosion. In sand the wind is creating most of the natural forms and I guess that's why we see more random natural contours in sand as the wind can blow from any direction while water is only moving down hill. Anyhow, with some vision and attention to detail I see no reason why a golf course built on clay can't retain some natural flavor.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()