[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Tom, I think this is a matter of a course maturing, the maintenance practices along with the evolving feelings of the Membership or owner. At the end of the day certain designs lend themselves to severe contours. I am sure there are examples where an architect and his team went off the charts but I am guessing you are talking about examples where the owner/developer and design team wer eon the same page during construction. I would think it can be fairly common for one or two holes to have a slope or part of the green which needs to be modified to increase or decrease the slope. I feel most architects lose the grip on their work at a course as time goes by. One never knows what a Greens Chairman or owner might do 5 to 10 years down the road either. It could be completely wrong and well outside the architects original vision or plans. Frankly i see that all the time in golf or even real estate developments. Yes they are warranted but it is not the sole determination of great greens. I love the severe greens at some of your courses and Augusta National. On the other hand I love some of the subtle but equally difficult greens that Bill Coure and others do as well.

[Dave McCollum]

A couple of thoughts on the OP:

Having spent time in Ireland, but not England or Scotland, it struck me that I had not come across many classic links course holes that had features as wild as those found at the newer courses.  I imagine part of this is due to (a) certain courses having been softened over the years, (b) the technology available and (c) the fact that there probably weren't many architects around that sought out natural green areas that had these types of contours.  MacKenzie at Sitwell is an example of one that did, and we all know what happened there. 

When I read this bit from Sven, a green at Portrush popped into my mind.  I went looking to see if I had snapped a picture.  I’m not sure it’s as severe as those described here, but it seems to provide a fair counterpoint to his remarks about greens on the old links.  No sure which hole.
 

[Ben Sims]

Are there right or wrong answers to these questions?  I'm not sure of that.  Whether the result is a success or a disaster is generally a matter of opinion -- whether the green is TOO severe for playability is rarely a black-and-white question.  But, my experience is that not many clients appreciate having to go back and make changes afterward, either for the disruption to the membership or for the reputational effect on the course.

Tom,

I just saw this post--I've been offline for a few days--and wanted to respond without reading the thread.  I think your OP is probably one of the top 10 issues facing architects today.  That is to say, how far should you take it as an architect?  The fine line between success and disaster is more than likely just as much a function of post-build management as design malfeasance.  I have a sneaking suspicion that most architects out there today have every capability to build EXACTLY what they are trying to built. Which also leads me to believe that the severity threshold set by the client was way to high, and the client/membership really didn't understand what the playability issues are with the severity of their greens.  Rock Creek comes to mind in this regard.  Also, its very easy for a client to set a maintenance standard during construction and for an architect to design with that in mind.  But 4-5 years down the road when the membership wants their greens as fast as their neighbor's, the line between functioning green and unplayable becomes subjective.  

All that in mind, I will take a stab at answering the unanswerable three questions as if I were an architect.

Is this a good example of an architect taking a design risk, or is it a mild form of malpractice with other people's money?  

That's really a three-part question:

1.  Did you understand how severe you were making this green?
2.  Did you intend to make it that severe, or did it just turn out more severe than you intended?
3.  Was it a mistake to build something so severe, or was it a thoughtful design risk?  Will you make a green as severe on your next course, or on some course in the future?

1.  Yes I did.  Did you?  My associates and I kept you involved during the design process and compared our ideas for this green to others that you have seen/played.  You were okay with those ideas conceptually.  

2.  I intended to make a severe green, yes.  The degree of severity is only measurable once there is grass on the green and the ball is moving on the ground.  Is it more severe than I would have liked?  Maybe.  But a severe green was the task and that's what we accomplished.

3.  Relative to what?  The other greens on this golf course or to greens on other courses.  I care much more about the green's ability to fit within the relative landscape of this golf course than how it plays relative to greens on other courses.  And I think it fits well within this golf course.  I don't consider it a design risk as much as one of the tougher aspects of this golf course.  In that regard, it was not a mistake.  But again, it is severe.  And I will probably design severe greens in the future, given the right client, site, and agronomic expectations.  

[Jon Wiggett]

Niall,

yes, that is a story I have heard as well (probably from your good self). I the problem there was that the pin position was almost unplayable from all angles. Had the pin never been placed there would that green feature have been a problem?

On a similar theme to the Sitwell Park one. I remember playing a qualifying event at Moortown back in the late 80's where many of the pins were set in the low point on the green. It was the middle of a dry summer so the greens were real slick and atleast 6 of the holes were either ball in the hole or off the green. here was a lot of grumbling as it was almost impossible to get your approach below the hole. A clear case of poor course set up rather than poor green design.

Jon

[Don_Mahaffey]

  I have a sneaking suspicion that most architects out there today have every capability to build EXACTLY what they are trying to built

Ben, if that is in fact the case, why do some of the world's most successful golf architects choose to work with their own crew when it comes to green's construction?

Basically, it sounds like your saying, draw it, GPS it, grid it... do whatever it takes to create the perfect 2D plan, then just turn it over to a contractor and you'll always get EXACTLY what you had in mind? Is that what your saying? Are all architects equally adapt at creating contoured greens? All contractors equally adapt at building contoured greens?

Why in the world would the Colts choose Luck with the first pick when they can get a QB in the 6th round? For that matter, why ever draft, just hire the best free agents you can find because they all have the same talent level, right? A QB is a QB, right?

[Tom_Doak]

All that in mind, I will take a stab at answering the unanswerable three questions as if I were an architect.

Is this a good example of an architect taking a design risk, or is it a mild form of malpractice with other people's money?  

That's really a three-part question:

1.  Did you understand how severe you were making this green?
2.  Did you intend to make it that severe, or did it just turn out more severe than you intended?
3.  Was it a mistake to build something so severe, or was it a thoughtful design risk?  Will you make a green as severe on your next course, or on some course in the future?

1.  Yes I did.  Did you?  My associates and I kept you involved during the design process and compared our ideas for this green to others that you have seen/played.  You were okay with those ideas conceptually.  

2.  I intended to make a severe green, yes.  The degree of severity is only measurable once there is grass on the green and the ball is moving on the ground.  Is it more severe than I would have liked?  Maybe.  But a severe green was the task and that's what we accomplished.

3.  Relative to what?  The other greens on this golf course or to greens on other courses.  I care much more about the green's ability to fit within the relative landscape of this golf course than how it plays relative to greens on other courses.  And I think it fits well within this golf course.  I don't consider it a design risk as much as one of the tougher aspects of this golf course.  In that regard, it was not a mistake.  But again, it is severe.  And I will probably design severe greens in the future, given the right client, site, and agronomic expectations.  

Ben:

In my experience, I would say that if you are having discussions like the above with your clients, you've already lost the war.

The answer to question #1 is really the giveaway.  If the client was involved throughout the process and understood what he was getting, then he would really "own" the design, and he would be DEFENDING the design to the members instead of asking you questions about it.  And that's what you need!  Sebonack has a lot of severe greens, but Mr. Pascucci has faced down some pretty high-profile people who have criticized them ... and of course he built his own green that's more severe than the rest.

Your answer to question #2 is also weak.  Saying the degree of severity is only measurable once the green is done, is a rookie mistake.  It's your job to know how severe it's going to be.  If the green speeds are faster than you anticipated, and the green is more severe for that reason, that's what you need to say.  If they aren't faster, then either you misjudged the severity of what you were building, or you just disagree about what's "too difficult".  In such instances it helps to be a good putter, so you can do the Trent Jones-at-Baltusrol defense of your design; it's a hell of a lot easier than making a hole in one!

[Sean_A]

Tom

Just to be clear, are you thinking of severe greens from an approaching, chipping and putting PoV or merely putting?  The greens I come across which are too severe or on the edge are those which are difficult to approach and chip to.  The putting too may be very difficult, but not necessarily.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Tom

Just to be clear, are you thinking of severe greens from an approaching, chipping and putting PoV or merely putting?  The greens I come across which are too severe or on the edge are those which are difficult to approach and chip to.  The putting too may be very difficult, but not necessarily.

Ciao

Sean:

I always look at greens from 360 degrees around them.  Putting is less than half the test.  However, I do believe that in recovery play, it is entirely fair for a recovery shot from one side to a certain hole location to be almost impossible ... as long as the recovery shot from the opposite side is fairly easy.

Just a bit earlier, Jon Wiggett was speaking of a day at Moortown where several hole locations made it "almost impossible to get your approach below the hole".  I smiled at that because it was clear he was thinking you had to be able to get the ball ON THE GREEN and below the hole, which I don't think is a requirement.  If you could leave yourself an easy uphill chip from just short of those greens, then there shouldn't have been any grumbling about the hole locations.

[Ben Sims]

  I have a sneaking suspicion that most architects out there today have every capability to build EXACTLY what they are trying to built

Ben, if that is in fact the case, why do some of the world's most successful golf architects choose to work with their own crew when it comes to green's construction?

Basically, it sounds like your saying, draw it, GPS it, grid it... do whatever it takes to create the perfect 2D plan, then just turn it over to a contractor and you'll always get EXACTLY what you had in mind? Is that what your saying? Are all architects equally adapt at creating contoured greens? All contractors equally adapt at building contoured greens?

Why in the world would the Colts choose Luck with the first pick when they can get a QB in the 6th round? For that matter, why ever draft, just hire the best free agents you can find because they all have the same talent level, right? A QB is a QB, right?

Don,

Marvel of modern life, I'm at 32K above Utah and responding.  Anyway, no that's not what I was saying at all.  In fact, just the opposite really.  My feeling is that architects--if they're involved enough on their projects--have the ability for a green to come out darn close to what they intended.  I'm not talking about engineering it to a spec at all, just an attention to detail by the principle.  It has nothing to do with what's better or worse or why people use their own guys.  It's just that a green should be what they architect wants when it's finished--or at least signed of on as what he wants. 

I'm not arguing quality, just intent.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Ben,
I guess I could say most of your students should have the capability to be ace fighter pilots. But I'm guessing some are better then others at having the capability, and talent, to deal with the training, intensity, focus, and split-second decision making required of a top level fighter pilot. Intent is nice, but I'll take the talented guy if I'm in the back seat.

[David Harshbarger]

Just a bit earlier, Jon Wiggett was speaking of a day at Moortown where several hole locations made it "almost impossible to get your approach below the hole".  I smiled at that because it was clear he was thinking you had to be able to get the ball ON THE GREEN and below the hole, which I don't think is a requirement.  If you could leave yourself an easy uphill chip from just short of those greens, then there shouldn't have been any grumbling about the hole locations.

This sounds like a great example of the green playing as a hazard, based on pin placement. Minor epiphany: You design greens with this characteristic. That is deviously delicious.

[Ben Sims]

Ben:

In my experience, I would say that if you are having discussions like the above with your clients, you've already lost the war.

The answer to question #1 is really the giveaway.  If the client was involved throughout the process and understood what he was getting, then he would really "own" the design, and he would be DEFENDING the design to the members instead of asking you questions about it.  And that's what you need!  Sebonack has a lot of severe greens, but Mr. Pascucci has faced down some pretty high-profile people who have criticized them ... and of course he built his own green that's more severe than the rest.

Your answer to question #2 is also weak.  Saying the degree of severity is only measurable once the green is done, is a rookie mistake.  It's your job to know how severe it's going to be.  If the green speeds are faster than you anticipated, and the green is more severe for that reason, that's what you need to say.  If they aren't faster, then either you misjudged the severity of what you were building, or you just disagree about what's "too difficult".  In such instances it helps to be a good putter, so you can do the Trent Jones-at-Baltusrol defense of your design; it's a hell of a lot easier than making a hole in one!

Tom,

The answer to question #1 is exactly as you say; an assumption that the client wasn't involved and is confused about the result.  And in your particular business model (not all architects), I just don't see that being an issue.  Which is why question #1, if answered in anything other than "Yes", if a failure for the architect.

Question #2, to an extent, I disagree with your opinion.  Maybe saying the degree of severity only being measurable once grass is on the surface is a rookie move, but it's also part of the equation that is important.  I think a better answer would be that "it plays how I wanted it to play and the severity may be more than others prefer"  Severity is subjective in my mind.  Again, the overarching idea that I'm sticking behind is that all architects should be able to say...

"This is what I wanted and we built it that way.  We paid attention to every detail to ensure that what we discussed and built was true to both our vision (the firm) and yours (the client).  If the green is not providing the playability that you expected, it is because it is being maintained in a way that is inconsistent with the standards given to us earlier in this process.  This recipe has worked on other greens we have built, to much success.  I think with time that you'll see that the green can be both challenging and fun, and that a slower speed for the green is warranted."

It entirely about COMMUNICATION. 

Again, my opinion is directly linked to the idea that the finished product should be exactly what the architect and client both agree upon.  In this era of high costs, nothing should be built that wasn't what was intended.

[Ben Sims]

Ben,
I guess I could say most of your students should have the capability to be ace fighter pilots. But I'm guessing some are better then others at having the capability, and talent, to deal with the training, intensity, focus, and split-second decision making required of a top level fighter pilot. Intent is nice, but I'll take the talented guy if I'm in the back seat.

Don,

Split second stick and rudder inputs, reacting to a threat is one thing.  Having a few days to mow, clean, rough grade, shape, reshape, have the architect take a look, have the client take a look, reshape again, float and plant is another. 

Maybe I am naive.  I just can't believe there are folks being that careless with a finished product.  Are there really guys out there that are floating a green, standing off to the side and saying "that's close enough" or "that'll do"?  Even if the work is poop, someone has to be happy with it for it to get planted, right?

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:

I agree with you in general.  However, your assumption that clients are always this involved is wrong, even for clients who really want to be that involved.  Some of them are just too busy to see every green as it's being approved, and the construction process in a place like Montana has to move too fast to wait around for the client to get back and see every green.  Clients like Mike Keiser and Michael Pascucci are the exception, not the rule, even at my end of the business.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Ben,
All I'm saying is some are better then others. A lot better. i hate to see the great ones get lumped in with the not so great as we cast a net over all "severe green contours". Different architects have different strengths. Some are better then others at building severely contoured greens that work. Some are better at taking on huge projects that are more of an engineering feat. To me it seems to work best when people stick to what they know best. Stay true to themselves as Peter wrote many posts ago on this thread.

I wouldn't call you naive, and I don't think anyone sets out to build something bad. But look around, it happens. Why?

[Adam Clayman]

Don't know if it's been mentioned, asked, or, germane... But...Shouldn't the slopes found on any particular design, be in harmony with the surrounds, region, and their unique topography? 

[Mike_Young]

TD,
I have a couple of thoughts here.  I don't see any problem with severe slope or no slope in greens as long as they transition into good pin positions built for the predetermined speed.  So often someone will place pins in places where they were not meant to be placed.  And IMHO that is a bigger problem than severe greens. 
In the last 15 years we all have seen examples of new courses having greens rebuilt a few years after opening.  And I think there were two separate standards of measurement as to whether is was negligence.  The first was for signature architects that made monthly visits and had their courses built by general contractors.  The client usually gave them a free pass.  If you were a smaller regional guy and a green needed changing then you were incompetent.   

[Howard Riefs]

There have been many courses designed in recent years where severe greens have later been softened, either with the architect's participation, or not.  I can think of examples from many well-known designers, including myself.

It's not just in recent years. I immediately found myself thinking of Sitwell Park - Dr Mac's wild greens were 'softened' almost immediately and no trace has remained for nigh on 100 years.

Were those greens a mistake, or was the mistake made in removing them?  From the famous photos of them I can't help thinking that Mac must have been on the Scotch that day!

I stumbled across this recent article about the famous lost green at Stilwell Park written by Robin Hiseman. An interesting account of its controversy during the day and how Mac designed it -- albeit no mention of Scotch.

http://www.egd.com/blog/?p=1150

[Sean_A]

Tom

Just to be clear, are you thinking of severe greens from an approaching, chipping and putting PoV or merely putting?  The greens I come across which are too severe or on the edge are those which are difficult to approach and chip to.  The putting too may be very difficult, but not necessarily.

Ciao

Sean:

I always look at greens from 360 degrees around them.  Putting is less than half the test.  However, I do believe that in recovery play, it is entirely fair for a recovery shot from one side to a certain hole location to be almost impossible ... as long as the recovery shot from the opposite side is fairly easy.

Just a bit earlier, Jon Wiggett was speaking of a day at Moortown where several hole locations made it "almost impossible to get your approach below the hole".  I smiled at that because it was clear he was thinking you had to be able to get the ball ON THE GREEN and below the hole, which I don't think is a requirement.  If you could leave yourself an easy uphill chip from just short of those greens, then there shouldn't have been any grumbling about the hole locations.

Tom

Sounds reasonable to me so long as that concept isn't pushed through 18 holes.  As I stated before, the most important thing about greens is balance, just like its important to balance the hole locations every day.  Some must be difficult, some moderately so and some not at all. 

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

Tom

Just to be clear, are you thinking of severe greens from an approaching, chipping and putting PoV or merely putting?  The greens I come across which are too severe or on the edge are those which are difficult to approach and chip to.  The putting too may be very difficult, but not necessarily.

Ciao

Just a bit earlier, Jon Wiggett was speaking of a day at Moortown where several hole locations made it "almost impossible to get your approach below the hole".  I smiled at that because it was clear he was thinking you had to be able to get the ball ON THE GREEN and below the hole, which I don't think is a requirement.  If you could leave yourself an easy uphill chip from just short of those greens, then there shouldn't have been any grumbling about the hole locations.

Tom,

just a bit earlier, you were talking about  'If you could leave yourself an easy uphill chip from just short of those greens'. I smiled at that because it was clear you were thinking all you had to do was to get the ball BELOW THE HOLE.

On some of those holes locations you only had a couple of feet of fringe and then either a bunker, steep bank or rough below so no easy chip. The greens were very firm so almost impossible to stop the ball in the small amount space available. The point of the post was to emphasise location suiting the conditions. If the course had been softer and the green speed slower they would have been tricky but playable.

I had less problems than most as I holed putts twice down the hill and once from a bunker.

Jon

[Colin Macqueen]

Gentlefolk,
There are 3 or 4 threads presently discussing green contours, renovating of classic greens, improvements etc.. I have nothing to add as I have not the experience of many course or architectural experience but I thought that the assembled company might enjoy the following bon mots provided by Colt and Alison. Oh to have the knowledge and be able to write as below!

In discussing Gradients,
"A distinguished golfing journalist recently informed me that the putting greens at his home course possessed "the three essentials". He spoke of them in a tone which would not have been inappropriate when referring to the ten Commandments, and I was therefore somewhat reluctant to confess that I did not know what they were. He expounded them as follows:
1. It should be possible to cut the holes on 75% of the surface of the green.

2. The ball should never gain momentum after leaving the club.

3. In holing out from a distance of 3ft . 6in. it should never be necessary to aim outside the circumference of the hole."

He proceeds to discuss "Freak Greens",
"....having played their ball onto the putting green they (the players) do not like to find that it is lying in a severe form of hazard. If a player is conscious that that he has gauged an approach putt well and that he has struck it truly he likes to see it go in or dead, and it is nothing but a torment to watch his ball, guided by powers which are beyond his control, go rushing down a steep place like swine possessed by the devil. No amusement can be derived from such incidents, and mortals should bow to the inexorable law of gravity."

And summing up,
"But if the architect, when supervising the construction of a new green, is in any doubt as to whether the slopes are of too severe  character, he might do worse than to remember this formula and to consider how far his work diverges from the suggested standard."

Do the cognescenti here on GCA think that these writings, generally speaking, stand up in the modern era? I guess that is what you are all fervently discussing!

I scalped these words from Some Essays on Golf Course Architecture H. S. Colt & C. H. Alison which can be accessed on

http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924020604223#page/n9/mode/2up

pages 42 - 44.  Good stuff but maybe some things never change!

Cheers Colin

[Sean_A]

So, the three laws are not Colt/Alison comments.  While Colt generally wasn't a risk taker, his greens are a bit more interesting than the three laws describe. 

Tom

I raised the issue of where greens are important (approaching, chipping and putting and sometimes driving) because some of the more interesting greens are only moderately difficult to putt.  Its the orientation which makes confounding - meaning one can't really gain the best angle of approach.  Think of Sea Headrig - a nothing hole except for the orientation of the green.  Same for North Berwick's Gate - the green isn't all that hard to putt, but to approach it is a nightmare.  What is also interesting is that these two holes vary in length quite a bit.  The archie wasn't afraid to cap a long hole with a maddening green.  It breaks so called convention of letting length be the main decider of green difficulty.  I think breaking the mould helps to create a variety of greens which in turn helps with balance.

Ciao     

[Adrian_Stiff]

I like what TD said about having it almost impossible from one side and fairly easy from the other, but i would lean more to very difficult rather than almost impossible if that makes sense. I do think if you are on the green the ball should be able to be stopped within 2 feet of the hole, others may disagree but if you want to piss people off this would be a great way. By and large people/the masses want a fair chance and the masses are not good enough to play to strict portions of a green. We seem to switch on this site that sometimes its open for play for all and decry some things then some of you give a tick to very extreme situations of difficulty just because you dont lose a ball. Standing in long queues and three putting are high on most peoples 'do not likes', three putting equals a lot of time too so that equates to slow play, when you start factoring that 4.5 -5 hour round, some people take ages on the greens, keeping them on them longer is not a good thing. Balance and interest in the greens yes, but i think there are limits and some of the newer designs like Kingsbarns and Castle course are too extreme in my view. I think most architects can look at either a green plan or one in the field at any level of construction and know how it will behave grassed at 3mm, I know problems can exist after gravelling and blinding that the rootzooning can turn oblique slopes into slopey drage, especially if you use a bunker rake/ sand pro to smooth them out. If you are building bumpy greens, maybe the architect should be the one on the sand pro this is definetly a stage where the odd degree of slope can bugger it.

[Sean_A]

Adrian, having seen Stranahan I think I know what you are saying.  The thing is, your words come across as creating staid greens, but I know this isn't what you intend to imply. 

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

I stumbled across this recent article about the famous lost green at Stilwell Park written by Robin Hiseman. An interesting account of its controversy during the day and how Mac designed it -- albeit no mention of Scotch.

http://www.egd.com/blog/?p=1150

Howard:

Thanks for that link.  I have in my files at the office copies of the correspondence between Dr. MacKenzie and the project manager for his client at Sitwell Park, given to me by Dr. James Scott when we were working on the MacKenzie bio.  I should try and post a couple of them later today ... they were very argumentative from both sides, but it is fair to say that MacKenzie was trying his experiment with the wrong client.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()