When does condition began to throw away architectural features on a course?

[Jordan Wall]

After reading the recent Apache Stronghold thread I wonder how bad a course's condition really has to be before it diminishes some of its architecture value...?

For instance, how much sand, or something of the like, does a green gave to have before its contours and the complex in general are diminished, or maybe when does a green get too fast[/color] and then ruin its contours and value?

What about conditioning on fairways, bunkers, tee boxes, etc. before some architectural value is diminished.

[Kyle Harris]

Jordan,

This touches very much on the Ideal Maintenance Meld. As a VERY general rule of thumb, greens are usually at their best in the 11-12 range on the stimp meter. Tom Paul talks about "ball creep" (not Wally Uilhein) a lot - basically the ball should roll 6-8 inches more after you think it should stop.

This is usually ideal.

Fairway and short grass should be cut so as to integrate hazards and mounding surrounding them. Meaning - get the fairway rolling into, or very close to the bunkers and allow the greens to extend all the way to the edges of their pad and to the anchor mounds.

Tee Boxes are overvalued in a conditioning sense, and should merely look presentable.

[Tom Huckaby]

Kyle - but of course on highly-contoured greens, 11-12 means goofy golf.  At that speed the ball won't stay anywhere near a pin position cut on any contour, just due to gravity.

That speed works great on flattish greens though.

But there ought to be a "Speed Limit 9" sign at courses like, oh, I don't know... a certain one in Santa Cruz, CA....

But I believe I've ranted on this issue about 15 times too much over the years.  

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

We've had a weekend or so where the greens at HVCC have been around 11-12, and they've got some contour in them. It's still within reason.

Now, at a Plainfield or Pasatiempo... 9-10 would be the range.

Ideal, baby, Ideal!

[Tom Huckaby]

Kyle - sounds good to me.  

Never been to HVGC though - when they get that quick, does it just mean the pin positions are dumbed down (put in the flat parts) or is the contour just small enough such that you don't get the gravity-based rollbacks?

If the former, well that's not a good thing either and you might need the sign I'm gonna make for Pasa.  If the latter, then all is right with the world.

 

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

I got "a talking to" today regarding one such hole location. Though HVGC is blessed with a set of greens where the flat parts are still a challenge to putt to since the balls rarely drop and stop so you need to work around the contours with both your approach and your putt.

We just like to have members be able to hit a well-struck and thought out putt that will stop within 3 feet of the hole.

Not necessarily dumbed down though - since a lot of the flats are tucked in corners and all. A few of the greens have NO dead center hole locations (see the picture of the 11th in Ran's write up).

[Tom Huckaby]

Kyle, all is right with the world.

 

I swear the only part about this I don't like is when a putt rolls to a hole, stops, then rolls back to one's feet.  Whenever this subject comes up, people never seem to grasp that this can happen, and that it's stupid.  Well I've seen it, and it remains stupid.  And it's all because 10 and above has become some sort of standard for how fast greens should be.

Give me a crazily contoured green at 7 and THAT is what golf is all about.

TH

[Jordan Wall]

For some weird reason I have this feeling conditioning is never a problem at HV...

The course, at least in pics, looks perfect conditioning wise.

[JESII]

I've become really curious about that exact question Tom. Which do I think is better for the playability of a golf hole? Green speeds that limit the use of +3% contour for hole locations, or slower speeds that allow those hole locations but reduce that consequences for hitting a shot above the hole. I think for each set of greens the speed will be different (Pasa as you referrence would be slower than Bethpage Black), but there is a line of demarcation for each set that divides the two scenarios.

I think I like faster greens, but do not have a good explanation for it.

[Tom Huckaby]

JES:

Well I went off the deep end a bit there.  

I too in general prefer faster greens.  But we're talking here about really a tiny sub-set of the world's greens - those with very severe contour, like Pasa.  On greens like this the stupid infinite putting effect can come into play, and the alternative (putting all the pins in the flat spots) isn't a good one either.  The greens just play SO much better at a slower speed... heck crank it up just fast enough such that the ball won't roll back to one's feet and that's perfect.  The problem is this speed gets exceeded far too often, and I believe it's because of the greens speed arms race, so to speak.

So on this tiny subset, there has to be a Green Speed Limit sign.

But on the vast majority of greens, hell crank em up.  The demarcation just has to be gravity... Seems simple to me.  If a ball placed near the hole stays put, then it all works.  If it start to roll, then it's too fast.  And if the only way to find this part that works is to search out the one little flat spot on an otherwise contoured green, then slow them down also.

TH

[Anthony Butler]

Tom,

We've had a weekend or so where the greens at HVCC have been around 11-12, and they've got some contour in them. It's still within reason.

Now, at a Plainfield or Pasatiempo... 9-10 would be the range.

As has been stated on GCA before, most of the greens from the 'golden age' of architecture were designed when grass cutting technology meant greens putted at 8 or below on the stimpmeter. The other way to ask this question is what would Mackenzie, Ross et al think about the fact that some of their original greens now roll at 12?

In most cases, some speeding up was needed to address the advantages better golf equipment provides. It doesn't take much though to move some of these courses beyond the ability of most amateurs. Most single handicappers don't break 90 during their first round at Augusta, although this is also due to a number of other factors.  

[jeffwarne]

We see a lot of restorations highlighted and glorified on this site. Most of the time there is reference to an architect's original intent.
Often every tree not there when the course was originally designed is targeted for extinction to go back to the original intent of the architect (as if it never occurred to the architect that existing trees might grow and new ones sprout - for all we know the architect may have been looking forward to the day some trees grew in )
I'm not referring to some horrible fir trees planted by a clueless greens chairman in the 1960's.

Yet if greens were designed when the day to to day speed was 5-8 on the stimp, why are these same courses maintaining their greens at 11-12?
Wouldn't a true restoration restore original green speeds?
And if the greens have been flattened to accomodate high speeds (usually not the case), let's restore the slopes.

Seems to me most restorations are interpretive and selective, making them in fact renovations.

[Paul_Turner]

How about when the greens are too slow?  In the off season in Britain, sometimes it seems that all putts are flat.

[Tom Huckaby]

How about when the greens are too slow?  In the off season in Britain, sometimes it seems that all putts are flat.

That can definitely occur.  Luckily it doesn't seem to be the case too often here in the States - at least from my experience.  But that too does suck.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Jordan:

Good question raised -- in my mind -- the role of course conditioning needs to be factored into the equation -- not as a primary and co-equal with the design -- but more in a support function.

The problem with AS is that from the times I have played it (3) to the times others have played it the level of conditioning is really a matter of personal relevance. Some people can handle the conceptual design and would not mind one iota if actual dirt was the surface for much of the round.

AS needs to demonstrate that it has the conditioning issues under control. I don't see convincing evidence that says otherwise. Give Doak top credit for the design and for the use of a routing that truly does do a fine job in taking the player on a unique adventure. However, the way to bring out those fun design elements is to have conditioning at a point where it allows that to happen. At AS that is not the case and for that reason would receive lower marks not only because of it but because of the consistent approach taken by management not to resolve it completely.

[wsmorrison]

Kyle,

I think Cobbs Creek is an excellent example of a great design in the crappiest of conditions that remains a course worth seeing.  Those that can afford to play elsewhere are likely to do so except for those that really appreciate architecture such as many of us on this site, especially Steve Schaffer.  Yet despite its dirt tees and fairways, condoms in bunkers and other assorted oddities on or about the course, it is well worth seeing for anyone that appreciates golf architecture.  There are great holes on that course.  If it were in ideal conditioning, it would be much wider known and better appreciated.  But it is what it is; a great course in a sorry condition.  It is still excellent architecture.

[Jason Blasberg]

To me nothing is worse than slow greens and fuzzy fairways.  Bunkers can be crumbling and tees half crooked but if I've got flyers off the fairway and better roll on my shag carpet then the best GCA can get lost.  

[Ryan Farrow]

Jordan,

This touches very much on the Ideal Maintenance Meld. As a VERY general rule of thumb, greens are usually at their best in the 11-12 range on the stimp meter. Tom Paul talks about "ball creep" (not Wally Uilhein) a lot - basically the ball should roll 6-8 inches more after you think it should stop.

This is usually ideal.

Fairway and short grass should be cut so as to integrate hazards and mounding surrounding them. Meaning - get the fairway rolling into, or very close to the bunkers and allow the greens to extend all the way to the edges of their pad and to the anchor mounds.

Tee Boxes are overvalued in a conditioning sense, and should merely look presentable.

Kyle when you hand mow your first green I will let you comment on this issue.









And I know that experience has absolutely nothing to do with your right to comment on that issue. I just needed to point it out.

[Mike_Young]

Seems to me most restorations are interpretive and selective, making them in fact renovations.

Jeff,
I think you are on to something....no doubt about it.....
Mike

[jeffwarne]

Mike,
Perhaps we could coin a new term.
"Historically inspired renovation'
or "Restoratively themed renovation"

Sorry for the threadjack.
Along those lines though, I must say I love playing great (most often older courses) architecture in mediocre condition.
Palmetto,Highland Park (now Aiken Golf Club), Forest Hills were courses I loved to play that were in what would be considered by most poor condition before they were rediscovered and reconditioned. They were uncrowded, inexpexpensive  gems and probably the poor conditions were similar to what mainstream  conditions were at the time they were built. (There I go again making assumptions about architect's intent)