News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Bob Montle

  • Karma: +0/-0
Great Greens
« on: December 11, 2019, 03:11:23 PM »
Re:  “Great courses require great greens”

For a great green, how much is it just the physical green and how much can/do the surrounds contribute?

50-50?   90-10?

Is it just how the green plays once you are on it, or do you need to consider surrounding slopes and hazards?

I believe you have to consider the surrounds but they can only add to but not make the green.

Take Augusta #12.   Completely flatten the green and it does it become just a mediocre hole?
Or – Take away the bunker, the water in front and the wooded hill behind and you still have a good green, but not the same, as it plays differently.

What are the criteria for a great green?

Your thoughts?   
"If you're the swearing type, golf will give you plenty to swear about.  If you're the type to get down on yourself, you'll have ample opportunities to get depressed.  If you like to stop and smell the roses, here's your chance.  Golf never judges; it just brings out who you are."

Brad Tufts

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Greens
« Reply #1 on: December 11, 2019, 04:06:39 PM »
I think it depends on how a green interacts with the shot coming in.


If it's just a wavy potato chip or two-tiered because "#14 is about time for a two-tiered green" then it's not a great green.
So I jump ship in Hong Kong....

Eric LeFante

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Greens
« Reply #2 on: December 11, 2019, 04:09:48 PM »
Is the 12th at Augusta a great green? I haven't played or been to Augusta but it seems like there is no undulation/mounding on that green and it is slightly tilted from back to front. Seems like the most mild green on the course by a wide margin and it wouldn't be one of the better green complexes on most good golf courses.


I think the surrounds play a role but I don't think you can have a mediocre green with great surrounds and it be considered a great green.




Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Greens
« Reply #3 on: December 11, 2019, 04:56:47 PM »
50-50 plus another 50 for the relationship of the green to the routing.  Yes, more than 100% but as Yogi Berra said, 90% of this game is mental and the other half is physical.  Mid Pines 4 is a great example.  Yes, the tree (sorry Jay Mickle) is a key element of the hole, but the way the green is angled plus the surrounds plus the contours make it a terrific green.  I would make the same case for an even more controversial hole:  Bandon Trails 14. 


Ira

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Great Greens
« Reply #4 on: December 11, 2019, 05:01:47 PM »
When we are building greens, unless it is a very severe one, I don't spend much time at all looking at how someone is going to putt from point A to point B . . . I spend the majority of my time looking at how the recovery shots are going to work to the different hole locations.


I don't even spend that much time thinking about how the approach shot is going to work, because that's the piece we will have started with, and my associate who's shaping it will most likely have that part worked out pretty well.  I might tweak a contour on the approach or the slope at the side of the green to make the approach shot harder or easier.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Greens
« Reply #5 on: December 11, 2019, 05:04:58 PM »
I'm with Eric on this one.  I would think the next hole would be a more interesting example as it has similar components surrounding it and a massively undulating green that I still can't figure out after how many years of seeing it on TV?

Michael Felton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Greens
« Reply #6 on: December 12, 2019, 10:33:41 AM »
I would be inclined to say that a great green is mostly about the green itself. I think how it fits into the surroundings would impact whether it is a great hole. The one exception to that I think is if the green doesn't match the hole at all, then it could cease to be a great green. I also think that it needs to fit with the rest of the course.


Having said all that, one of the best examples of a "great green" I can think of is the short at NGLA. It's pretty big, but really it's more like 4 small greens adjacent to each other. Woe betide you if you get on the wrong one. But I think it works because the shot you are playing to it is a short one. I'm less convinced I'd think it was a great green if it was on a long par 4 or a long par 3.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Great Greens
« Reply #7 on: December 12, 2019, 10:46:01 AM »
I would be inclined to say that a great green is mostly about the green itself. I think how it fits into the surroundings would impact whether it is a great hole.



Let me put it this way:  if a "great green" is two feet too high relative to everything around it, then it is probably no longer a great green.

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Greens
« Reply #8 on: December 12, 2019, 12:27:03 PM »

Would it be reasonable to assume that what a big strong guy or gal who hits the ball far and high and can land shots softly thinks is a great green is likely to be rather different to what a frail elderly gent or lady who hits the ball on a low trajectory and a much shorter distance thinks? Similarly a player with an excellent short game and great ability with the putter is likely to have a different opinion to someone with twitchy hands and the yips?
atb

Bob Montle

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Greens
« Reply #9 on: December 12, 2019, 01:11:43 PM »
I wasn't trying to imply that Augusta 12 is a great green, but was using it (and 13 too) as examples of where the surroundings and how shots are played to the greens influence our opinions of how good the actual greens may be.
"If you're the swearing type, golf will give you plenty to swear about.  If you're the type to get down on yourself, you'll have ample opportunities to get depressed.  If you like to stop and smell the roses, here's your chance.  Golf never judges; it just brings out who you are."

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Great Greens
« Reply #10 on: December 12, 2019, 03:37:01 PM »

Would it be reasonable to assume that what a big strong guy or gal who hits the ball far and high and can land shots softly thinks is a great green is likely to be rather different to what a frail elderly gent or lady who hits the ball on a low trajectory and a much shorter distance thinks? Similarly a player with an excellent short game and great ability with the putter is likely to have a different opinion to someone with twitchy hands and the yips?
atb


Like everything else in golf, a great green is a matter of opinion.


That said, a guy with the yips is not the first guy whose opinion I'd solicit about the matter of great greens.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Greens
« Reply #11 on: December 12, 2019, 06:17:29 PM »
Like most of the things discussed on this site it comes down to agreement on definitions.  When we define “the green” is it is green surface or is it the entire green site/green complex that we are talking about?


I happen to be working on a course now where the “green surfaces” are excellent (and I don’t mean that because of their condition, I mean that because of their design and contouring), however, the surfaces are poorly integrated with their current surrounds.  So are they great greens or not? 


To me, when I talk about a green I am usually talking about the entire green site/green complex.  I may separately talk about the green surface but to be a great green, I believe the entire green complex needs to be great.  That said it is possible to have a great green surface and not do great green surrounds.


During the current 18 hole renovation I mentioned above, the most important instruction I gave to the shaper at the start of construction is that 
with when we are finished we need everything that is connected to the green surface to be seamlessly integrated.  I see too many courses were the green surfaces and their surrounds are disconnected such that it looks like two different architects worked independently with one building the green surfaces and another building everything around them.  As such, on this project we not only are changing the surrounds, we are at times extending that area of disturbance into the green surfaces themselves. 


A pet peeve of mine is the approaches.  I believe they need to work well with the green surfaces and any flanking hazards/contours.  This is especially important if the ground game is part of the hole design.  It is somewhat less important if the hole is all about an aerial approach. 

David Harshbarger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Greens
« Reply #12 on: December 12, 2019, 06:44:21 PM »

During the current 18 hole renovation I mentioned above, the most important instruction I gave to the shaper at the start of construction is that 
with when we are finished we need everything that is connected to the green surface to be seamlessly integrated.  I see too many courses were the green surfaces and their surrounds are disconnected such that it looks like two different architects worked independently with one building the green surfaces and another building everything around them.  As such, on this project we not only are changing the surrounds, we are at times extending that area of disturbance into the green surfaces themselves. 



This point about integrating the surrounds into the green surface reminds me of a characteristic of many Ross greens that I've seen.  On many Ross greens there are features, such as mounds just off the green surface, that are pulled into the green as a spline or hump.  While I assume that most if not all of these features are manufactured, it makes the course feel more organic and integrated.


Even on push-up greens, which are obviously artificial, I find that pulling the defining features from off the green into the green engaging, and I like that.

The trouble with modern equipment and distance—and I don't see anyone pointing this out—is that it robs from the player's experience. - Mickey Wright

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Greens
« Reply #13 on: December 12, 2019, 07:09:01 PM »
David,
That is exactly what I am saying. If there is a mound near the side of a green, I like to see it bleed into the green surface and not just sit there looking disconnected. Same goes for where the green surface rises and falls along the edges.


But having said all of this, I am guessing most people are looking primarily at the green surfaces when they talk about "the greens". 
Mark

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Greens New
« Reply #14 on: December 12, 2019, 07:15:03 PM »

During the current 18 hole renovation I mentioned above, the most important instruction I gave to the shaper at the start of construction is that 
with when we are finished we need everything that is connected to the green surface to be seamlessly integrated.  I see too many courses were the green surfaces and their surrounds are disconnected such that it looks like two different architects worked independently with one building the green surfaces and another building everything around them.  As such, on this project we not only are changing the surrounds, we are at times extending that area of disturbance into the green surfaces themselves. 

This point about integrating the surrounds into the green surface reminds me of a characteristic of many Ross greens that I've seen.  On many Ross greens there are features, such as mounds just off the green surface, that are pulled into the green as a spline or hump.  While I assume that most if not all of these features are manufactured, it makes the course feel more organic and integrated.

Even on push-up greens, which are obviously artificial, I find that pulling the defining features from off the green into the green engaging, and I like that.


I like that as well, but I also like in your face stand alone features which aren't physically connected to the green.  The important thing is the feature affects the play into the green.  If done well, connected or not can look engaging and engage.

Happy Hockey
« Last Edit: December 24, 2019, 04:08:24 AM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

David Harshbarger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Greens
« Reply #15 on: December 12, 2019, 07:30:55 PM »
David,
That is exactly what I am saying. If there is a mound near the side of a green, I like to see it bleed into the green surface and not just sit there looking disconnected. Same goes for where the green surface rises and falls along the edges.


But having said all of this, I am guessing most people are looking primarily at the green surfaces when they talk about "the greens". 
Mark


I parse "great greens" based on the context.  When someone is talking about the course condition, "greens" refers to the consistency, speed, smoothness, etc. of the surface.  When someone is talking about playability, they may be talking about the overall green complexes. But they may be talking about just the surface.  <shrug>


As a counterpoint to integrated features, (for whatever reason) I have played quite a few Dev Emmet courses, and his greens often eschew contour in lieu of tilt (Huntington 14 notwithstanding).  In many cases, the greens are surrounded by mounds.  Notably, the mounds rarely bleed into the green contours. These greens also work for me, particularly when the mowing takes the green right up to the mounds, so that the mounds define the green pad. 


I enjoy this approach, also. 
The trouble with modern equipment and distance—and I don't see anyone pointing this out—is that it robs from the player's experience. - Mickey Wright

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Greens
« Reply #16 on: December 12, 2019, 09:29:19 PM »
Rans recent review of Maidstone said Maidstones greens are in the top 24 in the world.  Having played there a few times this summer I'm not sure I agree with it but they lay on the ground perfectly and have just enough movement to make you think on every putt.


Last week I played Mountain Lake in Florida.  My biggest surprise was how great those greens are.

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Greens
« Reply #17 on: December 13, 2019, 02:24:20 AM »

During the current 18 hole renovation I mentioned above, the most important instruction I gave to the shaper at the start of construction is that 
with when we are finished we need everything that is connected to the green surface to be seamlessly integrated.  I see too many courses were the green surfaces and their surrounds are disconnected such that it looks like two different architects worked independently with one building the green surfaces and another building everything around them.  As such, on this project we not only are changing the surrounds, we are at times extending that area of disturbance into the green surfaces themselves. 



This point about integrating the surrounds into the green surface reminds me of a characteristic of many Ross greens that I've seen.  On many Ross greens there are features, such as mounds just off the green surface, that are pulled into the green as a spline or hump.  While I assume that most if not all of these features are manufactured, it makes the course feel more organic and integrated.


Even on push-up greens, which are obviously artificial, I find that pulling the defining features from off the green into the green engaging, and I like that.


This may be too subtle a difference to what you say above but I think about it the other way round (at least when building native soil greens on sand): Create the green complex and surrounds as one and then make sure the final mowing line of the green surface doesn’t just follow the top of the pad.... i.e. the surface should fall over the edges and flash up the sides.

David Harshbarger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Greens
« Reply #18 on: December 13, 2019, 02:13:39 PM »

This may be too subtle a difference to what you say above but I think about it the other way round (at least when building native soil greens on sand): Create the green complex and surrounds as one and then make sure the final mowing line of the green surface doesn’t just follow the top of the pad.... i.e. the surface should fall over the edges and flash up the sides.


Ally, I find this comment very interesting.  When thinking through the concept of greens v surrounds, at one level, the distinction comes down simply to the mowing lines.  At that level, as you say, just mowing the complex in a way that "surround" topography is given "green" mowing treatment naturally integrates the two. 


This goes to a question I've seen posted here a few times: what's the point of tightly mown areas that are too steep to hold a ball?


False fronts are the most common representation of this feature.  But if you bust the greens mower off the pad you are probably going to be going down (or maybe up) some terrain that, once cut to green height, won't hold a golf ball at rest.


I think that this is one of the great features of a golf course, and I am always happy to see when a course is presented such that there are "dead zones" like this, around the green, where the ball will not come to rest and where no shot will originate. 


This doesn't have to be penal.  Punchbowl greens, backboards and sideboards all work on the same principle.  We all like to make use of these when we can.


When laid out thoughtfully though, using mowing to tie together the foreground and background of the green while creating "hazards" disguised as the "objective" is a pro-move in my book.
The trouble with modern equipment and distance—and I don't see anyone pointing this out—is that it robs from the player's experience. - Mickey Wright

Anthony Gholz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Great Greens
« Reply #19 on: December 13, 2019, 02:25:02 PM »
Gentlemen:


Links just published a Dost aerial photo of 15 thru 17 at Cypress.  OMG  Do we look at that and really wonder if Mackenzie/Hunter have those greens 1-2 feet higher or lower than perfection!!!  And do surroundings affect our view of the greens?!!!!  NO S--T.


I think that photo is worth exclamation points! Congrats to Ms. Dost.


Anthony

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back