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.


Donnie Beck

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are Severe Green Contours Warranted?
« Reply #75 on: February 16, 2012, 07:08:47 AM »
I don't have a problem with contours as long as there are sections of flat pinable areas within the green. I think C&C do a great job of creating greens within greens. Overall there is a ton of movement in their greens but they always leave flat pinable areas which leads to very makable putts if you can controll your approach to the proper tier of the green. #1 at NGLA is another great example of this style of green. The problem with green speed and contours happen when someone designs greens with alot of slope and lack of tiers. No one wants to miss a 5 footer and end up 15-20' past the hole.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Are Severe Green Contours Warranted?
« Reply #76 on: February 16, 2012, 07:17:16 AM »
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.

Adrian:

I agree with some of what you're saying, and I even think some of my own courses have too much severity on the greens, in hindsight.  If they were cost-free to fix, I would make some changes, but of course those kinds of fixes would NOT be cheap to make.

I don't agree with your "two-foot rule".  I understand what you're trying to say, but what you are REALLY saying there is that a very good player should never make bogey if he hits a good first putt, even if he hits a very sloppy and thoughtless approach that just finds the green.  Is that what you really want to achieve?

Also, I want to refer back to Mike Young's point from earlier about hole location.  In many cases, the difference between getting a putt within two feet and only being able to get it within five feet is that the hole is placed three feet closer to the base of a severe slope.  I would wager that it wasn't the architect's intent for the hole to be that close to the slope in non-tournament play, although we are sometimes guilty of not making hole locations big enough, which forces the superintendent to put the hole near the slope to spread out wear.  Other times, however, it's just the kid cutting the holes who is making it hard for everyone ... and it's not always a matter of sloppiness, those kids love to test the golfers, too.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Are Severe Green Contours Warranted?
« Reply #77 on: February 16, 2012, 07:20:00 AM »
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     

Sean:

Interesting that you noted that Colt did not claim to write the "three laws" but only quoted from them.  I never noticed that before.

Your other point is an excellent one.  In fact, I'm going to print copies of it for my associates.  We all love the 16th green at North Berwick and talk about how severe it is, but you are right that it's mainly severe because of the angle of play.  We should build more greens with that general idea.

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are Severe Green Contours Warranted?
« Reply #78 on: February 16, 2012, 07:39:15 AM »
I agree with Donnie about the functionality and size of the segments being crucial to a wild green being a good green.

It's in this regard that The Renaissance Club, for example, succeeds spectacularly. Really, with few exceptions, the RGD and C&C greens I have seen all fit that ideal well and it's where many other courses with wild greens fall short. That and the internal green undulations working with the design of rest of the hole and not being there for the sake of being there.

Those great C&C and RGD greens also marry in some with what Sean is saying -- hitting your approach into the correct section is challenging but achievable, but once you're there, putting isn't all that difficult. The difficulty of putting comes in putting from one segment to another.

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are Severe Green Contours Warranted?
« Reply #79 on: February 16, 2012, 07:44:02 AM »
Tom - I suspect we are thinking along the same lines and of course sometimes that pin could be 8 foot from the slope and not 6 foot which would then account to fair architecture versus bad set up. The problem WE all face in wanting severe or even moderate contouring is the continual battle factored by increased speed, an 12 stimp versus a 8 stimp down a slope is a non contest and whilst the stimp meter is great for what it does, it should be understood that on a downslope a ball might roll 30 feet on a 12 stimp yet only 12 feet on an 8. In the UK greens are rarely a 12 stimp for a long period and even the best greens go back to 6 or 7 in the winter times, if you are going to go to 12 stimp  you need some flat areas, the best flat areas are usually on the backs of greens taking all things into consideration.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Are Severe Green Contours Warranted?
« Reply #80 on: February 16, 2012, 07:48:11 AM »
Tom - I suspect we are thinking along the same lines and of course sometimes that pin could be 8 foot from the slope and not 6 foot which would then account to fair architecture versus bad set up. The problem WE all face in wanting severe or even moderate contouring is the continual battle factored by increased speed, an 12 stimp versus a 8 stimp down a slope is a non contest and whilst the stimp meter is great for what it does, it should be understood that on a downslope a ball might roll 30 feet on a 12 stimp yet only 12 feet on an 8. In the UK greens are rarely a 12 stimp for a long period and even the best greens go back to 6 or 7 in the winter times, if you are going to go to 12 stimp  you need some flat areas, the best flat areas are usually on the backs of greens taking all things into consideration.

Agreed, and see what I just wrote on the other thread regarding green slopes and the Stimpmeter.  Twelve on the Stimpmeter is the real problem here.

I do know a superintendent at one famous club with severe greens who fertilizes the steeper parts of his greens more heavily, so that he can have the flatter parts of the greens running at 12 but the slopes are fuzzier and the ball doesn't get away from you when putting down the hill.  I could not believe that when he told me ... he is one crazy dude!  Golfers would never notice that the green wasn't as fast as they expected on the really steep parts, but I'll bet they wonder why they have such a hard time putting UP the tiers!

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are Severe Green Contours Warranted?
« Reply #81 on: February 16, 2012, 07:50:54 AM »
To Donnie's point about "flat"(enough) pinnable areas.
I understand that's the modern reality.

But with the acceleration (just in my lifetime) of green speeds form 8-9 to 12-13, haven't we really lost something if greens with formerly pinnable areas that are not "Donnie flat" enough are lost?
haven't we made putting easier if we have to build greens with "flat" enough spots to tolerate today's speeds?
How about a green with an overall tilt(formerly pinnable,but now not) suggesting approaching from a particular angle?

There are some greens where pin high was the worst place to hit it as the borrow created too much speed to stop it.
Now a ball won't even stop on the same green uphill or downhill as speeds have increased.
a "flat pinnable" area reduces this feature of the hole (to make it finishable).



In reading a new reply what I guess I'm saying is that I hate that greens have to always be segmented, as the ball won't stop on an overall slope, so a 8 foot miss (from on or off the green)  becomes a 40 foot miss. Sort've like short game target golf, ok in small doses, but a steady diet is no good.
So while I understand the reality designers and superintendants live in, no amount of rebuilding/softening to accoomodate high speeds can restore the original challenge which ocurred not just on the green but also when approaching and in the short game, the need for proper angle of approach or even the skill involved in a 8 footer with 2 feet of break without as Donnie says, worrying about it going 30 feet past the hole. (which can happen even more often/severely if the player putts off the tier needed to produce the flat area)
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Are Severe Green Contours Warranted?
« Reply #82 on: February 16, 2012, 08:02:39 AM »
To Donnie's point about "flat"(enough) pinnable areas.
I understand that's the modern reality.

But with the acceleration (just in my lifetime) of green speeds form 8-9 to 12-13, haven't we really lost something if greens with formerly pinnable areas that are not "Donnie flat" enough are lost?
haven't we made putting easier if we have to build greens with "flat" enough spots to tolerate today's speeds?
How about a green with an overall tilt(formerly pinnable,but now not) suggesting approaching from a particular angle?

There are some greens where pin high was the worst place to hit it as the borrow created too much speed to stop it.
Now a ball won't even stop on the same green uphill or downhill as speeds have increased.
a "flat pinnable" area reduces this feature of the hole (to make it finishable).



In reading a new reply what I guess I'm saying is that I hate that greens have to always be segmented, as the ball won't stop on an overall slope, so a 8 foot miss (from on or off the green)  becomes a 40 foot miss. Sort've like short game target golf, ok in small doses, but a steady diet is no good.
So while I understand the reality designers and superintendants live in, no amount of rebuilding/softening to accoomodate high speeds can restore the original challenge which ocurred not just on the green but also when approaching and in the short game, the need for proper angle of approach or even the skill involved in a 8 footer with 2 feet of break without as Donnie says, worrying about it going 30 feet past the hole. (which can happen even more often/severely if the player putts off the tier needed to produce the flat area)

Jeff:

These are excellent points.

Quite a few old greens really WERE laid out on natural ground ... which was possible when you could use areas up to 4% or even 5% for hole locations.  I've been surprised how many green plans I've seen which instruct the contractor to "leave the surface alone" and just dig bunkers at the sides.  We almost never get to do that anymore, because the green speeds have given even small natural contours too much influence.

The other problem is that when you are working on undulating ground, it gets hard to make the contouring of the greens feel natural, which is one of the things I think you are describing above.

Yet another problem is that it's harder to see the bottom of the flag on uphill approaches.  Your eye level is just over five feet.  If you're playing 15 feet uphill from 100 yards out, that means the hole is ten feet above your eyes in 300 feet ... that's a little over 3%.  On an old green at old speeds, you might have been able to see the bottom of the flag on a 3% or 4% slope.  But on a new green where the tiers are 2.25%, you can no longer see the tiers, only the slopes in between them.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are Severe Green Contours Warranted?
« Reply #83 on: February 16, 2012, 10:13:53 AM »
As Lou D or others will tell you, I have never been accused of flat greens, but over time I am coming to the conclusion that those 3 Colt rules (whether he wrote them first or just agreed) are pretty damn good ones, good enough to make breaking them the exception to the rule.

Has anyone proven that a five foot break is harder to actually make than a five inch break?

Is "de-greening" something that has to be standard to make a set of greens great?  Isn't that something that is better perhaps once or twice a course as a unique feature?

Isn't Colt right that the function of the green, once reached, is to allow a great putt to go in, and a good one to land dead?

Isn't Colt right that most golfers take no joy in constant 10 foot roll bys?

Isn't JN right that the course architecture really, really, isn't there to hurt a player?  And this certainly applies more to the every day course than a tourney course most here are using as examples.  At Podunk muni, should the greens be such that one of the world's all time great putters (Crenshaw) would be in fear of de greening?

If someone has mentioned the maintenance concerns, I missed it.  Are big contours really worth the environmental stress of extra water on high mounds in the green?  The high cost of hand watering, or double fertilizing?  I have seen bent in the south facing south, and bermuda facing north (on sand greens) dessicate due to winter winds.  It's pretty typical, actually.  Is re-grassing these every year worth it to create a circus putt?  Is it worth it once?  Twice? 18 times?

For that matter, are big contours worth it 18 times, or in a purely design context, are the better as change of pace examples, hopefully located in "just the right spot" for easy maintenance (not on hilltops where they dry, not in deep valleys where there is too little air movement?).

I understand what most are saying, in that all the "standard rules" do eliminate some great looking greens.  2-6% sure look better than 1.5-2%.  However, they do have several functions beyond aesthetics.  And, is it really good design theory (if form follows function) to design a green because some old guy did it that way, over designing a green that will function well (and hopefully economically efficiently at least for all but the top1% richest courses) into the future?

So, its really not a BW question, as courses, goals, clientele are all across the spectrum.

BTW, one of the best at matching this at high end coruses is Fazio.  I noticed years ago that when he had big internal or edge rolls, his pin spots were flatter - even close to 1% or less to compensate.  Other greens are gently rolling throughout, at slopes up to 4%, with most 2-3%.

I got to wondering what would be the "ideal" green for the Olympic course?  Enough rolls for the Oly, but soft enough for public play later.  I surmise big 7500 SF greens, with some rolls, but a lot of flat space in between might be the perfect, dual goals, design solution there, but I won't have a say in it, of course.  Of course, on the muni's I design, an "extra" 1000-1500 SF of green for pure, extra roll might not be warranted, given a limited budget.  Think about it - at $6SF, that is another $120K in debt to pay off for the priveledge of rolling greens and wild contours.  Worth it?

As to whether the "client" is on board, first, wouldn't your true "client" be the end user, no matter who pays the bills?  Second, like others, even when a client has said he will keep green speeds in check, at the first club tourney, they go up, then the complaints start.  And, the client rep is often the superintendend, not the owner himself.  Thus, my experience has been that the client input in the design phase (as TD says, the involved, dream course, look at every detail owners are few and far between, perhaps 1% of the 1% who would be building such courses) really comes from either the management company, or its superintendent, and you can guess which side of the ledger they fall on.

And honestly, as TD admits, I have often wondered how it is that JN greens (and the rest of us) get softened after a few years, but TD, Gil, and a few others who make a career of building wilder greens are lauded as genius!  I figure the name architects get their greens to stay as designed for a few more years longer than the rest of us, but if it happened to Mac, Ross, and others, it will eventually happen to the current crop. 

Sadly, the designs often have to cater to the everyday, high handicapper, basically the lowest common denominater who complains the most.   One architect, a few committed good players, etc. are usually powerless against the onslaught of the masses who prefer things just a little simpler.

So, even in "pure design" its not a BW prop either.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are Severe Green Contours Warranted?
« Reply #84 on: February 16, 2012, 11:12:43 AM »
Jeff,

Interesting points.  Couple of caveats.  Even the name minimalist guys have to rework greens.  Bandon Trails #14 is perhaps the poster child for this.  Also, coming from a family of building architects, relying solely on CAD design and form follows function rarely if ever offers truly inspiring results.  I'm not surprised that Fazio is the master of the mathematically ideal green...
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Are Severe Green Contours Warranted?
« Reply #85 on: February 16, 2012, 11:29:45 AM »
Jeff,

Interesting points.  Couple of caveats.  Even the name minimalist guys have to rework greens.  Bandon Trails #14 is perhaps the poster child for this.  Also, coming from a family of building architects, relying solely on CAD design and form follows function rarely if ever offers truly inspiring results.  I'm not surprised that Fazio is the master of the mathematically ideal green...

Jud:

Bill Coore has had to re-work two greens in his career, that I know of.  Equating this with someone having to re-work 17 greens on a single course is more than a bit misleading.

For that matter, Jeff's assumption that all of our greens will have to be re-worked eventually is probably a bit misleading, too.  MacKenzie did have greens re-worked here and there, but what percentage, really?  A few at Sitwell Park, one or two at Pasatiempo, one or two at Cypress Point, two at The Valley Club ... what else?  When you consider that we are talking about them EIGHTY YEARS LATER, is that a testament to how poorly planned they were, or to how well they have held up?

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are Severe Green Contours Warranted?
« Reply #86 on: February 16, 2012, 11:37:59 AM »
From a lay person,thanks to all posting.Fascinating reading.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are Severe Green Contours Warranted?
« Reply #87 on: February 16, 2012, 12:06:41 PM »
TD,

You are correct that its all on a percentage basis, but the more contour is in them, the more likely it is they will be rebuilt. 

The funny thing about these conversations is that someone always brings up the out there example, the "poster child" as mentioned.   Rarely is, in fact. Specifically, the Sitwell Park green is a freak among freak greens!  Ironically, it seems as if the greens at "Sitwell" had approach shots that didn't....well, uh, sit well.

But, Mac liked to tell stories of golfers complaining about his greens to him on trains and what not, so I suspect there were others.  Like Bush making up some rape in Iraq to justify an invasion, or any other number of political slights of hand, the poster child isn't always the reality of what I call "Golf in America."   


The other interesting point, only touched on by what Faz tries to do to keep rolling greens, is that on any 18 hole course, even greens of similar slopes, some will work, some won't. Its hard to tell if its a shadier site and more growth, the way the slopes combine, or what not that make one of two similar greens puttable and the other not.  Hence, your good advice to let the gca (with help from supers, knowledgable players, etc.) make an on site determination.

Shouldn't have used you as a poster child for green flattening either,  but my point is, I still don't always understand why 4% or whatever slopes being accepted at LACC or Pac Dunes but not at JN's Dove Canyon. 

 Do members have different standards than pros?  Pete and Allice always told me that they felt every day golfers like varying contours to make the course play differently, while pros coming in once a year liked them flatter so they didn't really have to learn the greens quickly.
 
 Does someone coming to Pac Dunes factor in the fact that its replicating old seaside courses to a degree, and thus "accept" modern contours as if they were from old courses? 

  Or is it they want "makeable putts" on their every day course, and something different when they travel?

BTW, loved that Crenshaw degreened on CD 11.  As you recall, I did the same from the upper tier, even using the roundabout way you showed me.  Hey, I always wanted to say I could putt like Ben, and now I can!
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are Severe Green Contours Warranted?
« Reply #88 on: February 16, 2012, 12:20:31 PM »
MacKenzie did have greens re-worked here and there, but what percentage, really?  A few at Sitwell Park, one or two at Pasatiempo, one or two at Cypress Point, two at The Valley Club ... what else? 

The entire course at Hazlehead, nine greens at Lahinch...

I never saw these greens as MacKenzie built them but I'd hazard a guess that they were a lot more interesting than those which replaced them and I'd also hazard a guess that they weren't particularly outrageous going by what remained...

Goes to show that greens being softened / reworked can be as much to do with committees trying to make their marks as any notion of real severity or lack of fairness...

It's also noticeable that most examples are softened / reworked within a few years of originally being built. If the original Client is strong enough and long enough in the position to not fold when the inevitable early criticisms come in from the everyday golfer, then the greens are probably much more likely to survive and become "classics"...

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are Severe Green Contours Warranted?
« Reply #89 on: February 16, 2012, 01:31:48 PM »
Ally,

Good point.  There is often no records of when greens were rebuilt, so how can we say what % of old greens have been reworked.  My guess is that it is far closer to 100% than 0%.  Now, maybe they were reworked for USGA greens, or other agronomic or design reasons, but then softened at the time to solve those complaints.

Both Dick Nugent and then I took some heat for the greens at Dornick Hills years ago, but I did suggest historic restoration (especially seeing some of the old NGLA like elements left out in the fw's).  It turns out the green committee had rebuilt those Maxwell greens at least twice without architectural help and there was really nothing left to restore, nor did they particularly care as much about restoration, circa 1988, as they did degreening so many putts because their greens were still in the 4-6% slope range.

Which brings up another "softening" topic, discussed here once on Jay Morrish's redo of Thomas's of Ojai - the greens tended to slope so much back to front that his solution to avoid touching the greens surrounds was to install tiers or decks and leave the rest flatter.  So, what's right?  Keep the surrounds (probably for budget reasons) intact, and alter the green surface, or sort of redo all the surrounds and try to replicate all that shaping in a softer fashion to match the newly built, but softer and gently rolling greens that better replicate the originals?  If Jay was limited to the green surfaces (and I think he was) then the math says you have to add tiers.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Are Severe Green Contours Warranted?
« Reply #90 on: February 16, 2012, 01:55:16 PM »
Shouldn't have used you as a poster child for green flattening either,  but my point is, I still don't always understand why 4% or whatever slopes being accepted at LACC or Pac Dunes but not at JN's Dove Canyon. 

 Do members have different standards than pros?  Pete and Allice always told me that they felt every day golfers like varying contours to make the course play differently, while pros coming in once a year liked them flatter so they didn't really have to learn the greens quickly.
 

Jeff:

Pros have different standards, and of course, the pros run the Tour, indirectly at least.  The PGA Tour has some new "standards" for green construction on their own courses -- which Dr. MacKenzie would probably liken to trying to build 18 flat greens -- partly as a result of the flak they got after that first year at Dove Canyon.  Never mind that some other Tour courses would make those standards obsolete!

By the same token, I was talking to your old friend TEP this morning, and he reported that at Aronimink the same Tour staff asked the superintendent to SLOW DOWN the greens compared to what he had for daily membership play, but then to FIRM UP the greens.  This enabled them to use some difficult hole locations at the corners of the greens where the players had to live in fear of not being able to stay below the hole.  If only they would take the same approach to new courses!

The whole subject is frustrating to me.  I have a pretty darned good idea how the greens we're building will work.  I don't want to see creativity reduced to Paint By Numbers.


Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are Severe Green Contours Warranted?
« Reply #91 on: February 16, 2012, 02:00:20 PM »
I will throw another spanner in the works and bring up top dressing. Additions of sand smooth the surface and build up over a period of time, would 1 inch in 10 years be fair? That has quite an effect over a couple of decades that almost creates that same problem we see with the 'sand pro' in construction where obliqueness gets smoothed and contouring becomes longer and the flats can get lost. We have all been regularly top dressing for 30-40 years now after all I think its effects should not be understimated in altering the ODGs greens.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Are Severe Green Contours Warranted?
« Reply #92 on: February 16, 2012, 02:11:17 PM »
I will throw another spanner in the works and bring up top dressing. Additions of sand smooth the surface and build up over a period of time, would 1 inch in 10 years be fair? That has quite an effect over a couple of decades that almost creates that same problem we see with the 'sand pro' in construction where obliqueness gets smoothed and contouring becomes longer and the flats can get lost. We have all been regularly top dressing for 30-40 years now after all I think its effects should not be understimated in altering the ODGs greens.

Adrian:

You are absolutely right on this, except that on higher-end American courses, it is MORE than one inch every ten years, it's probably at least double that.  It is most obvious on greens that were designed to slope away from the line of play, where now there is a rise of a few inches just in front before the green starts to slope away ... you may think that was done to keep the drainage off the putting surface, but if you excavate, you'll see that it wasn't part of the original construction.

I am even starting to notice it on my own [older] courses.  There's a green at Pacific Dunes where one side is 4-5 inches higher than when we built it, because of sand blown out of the bunker on that side of the green!  You can see the layer when they cut cups on that portion of the green.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are Severe Green Contours Warranted?
« Reply #93 on: February 16, 2012, 02:26:19 PM »
Adrian,

Forgot to post that, and to use the Poster Child analogy again, I would say that Pinehurst 2, where many say the heavy topdrssing caused domed greens that Richard Mandell's book show weren't really there is the poster child for that.

Tom makes a good point on bunker sand, also very common, as are subtle contrours that arose by settling over the years, as a result of poor compaction.

TD,

I agree on the frustration of the paint by numbers.  In relation to politics, permitting and law, I often say that sooner or later, there will be a rule against everything, and I feel close to the same on green contour designs.  Fascinating how things keep changing.  Now to get pins closer to green edges, the Tour will allow greater slopes.  Hmm.  It reminds me of the old "inconsistent green speeds" argument for greens in shade vs sun.  It seems to me that no matter how hard anyone tries to get bunkers or greens perfectly consistent, it just cannot happen, and the expense of trying is just getting out of hand.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are Severe Green Contours Warranted?
« Reply #94 on: February 16, 2012, 02:32:20 PM »
Ally

You can add several greens at Troon Portland to that list as well as at Erskine. There's also the first green at Pitreavie that FBD violated  ;D

Niall

Peter Pallotta

Re: Are Severe Green Contours Warranted?
« Reply #95 on: February 16, 2012, 03:11:26 PM »
Yes, thank you - fascinating reading. 

The comparison with Golden Age contouring is interesting.  It seems to me that both the architectural intention behind and the golfer's experience of those severe contours differs greatly from that of the modern age.  For the average golfer back then: a long iron approach into a 2-shotter, with little expectation of par (hence the old bogie score on the card).  For the average golfer today: a mid iron into most Par 4s, with the expectation that a green in regulation will result in a par.  Add a severely contoured green into the equation, and you have Golden Age golfers for whom the extra challenge/fun did not significantly alter their expecations; and you have Modern Age golfers for whom now a green in regulation guarantees nothing, not even a bogie.

Peter   

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are Severe Green Contours Warranted?
« Reply #96 on: February 16, 2012, 03:30:07 PM »
Peter,

Can we really ascertain that?  Did Maxwell, for instance, ever write that HE thought the possibility of de-greening a putt was a good thing on his greens?  Or were the 6-8% slopes used then "tuned" to the soils, drainage, speed, etc. to try to achieve about the same thing modern archies try to get with 2% greens?

In other words, is recreating Colt's three rules (which is what most of us do) a better and more sincere tribute to the works of the Golden Age than reproducing the slopes they produced for different reasons that have passed us all by?

One techincal thing is that Thomas wrote about flatter greens for long irons, anticipating a run up, and steeper back to front greens on short holes to help lofted shots check up.  Not so sure that with more standard clubs, that basic green slopes haven't sort of leveled out to 2% on any hole, since all clubs react the same.  And, with no thoughts as to run ups with long irons any more, perhaps, if anything, longer par 4's might get a little steeper to help stop shots and short par 4's flatter figuring they don't need as much help.....I am not sure I have heard any gca's (other than me....just now) opine on that subject.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Peter Pallotta

Re: Are Severe Green Contours Warranted?
« Reply #97 on: February 16, 2012, 03:37:16 PM »
Jeff - thanks. No, I suppose you're right, and that we can't really ascertain that. I was talking more about a feeling/sense of the times that I get, and more so just meant to add something on the golfer's experience -- then and now -- given that so many good posts had already come from the other side, i.e. architects/professionals.  It just seems true to me that a golfer's experience of severe contours back then was much different than today -- in the way he played them and in how he felt about the results.  But you raise a good point/question and I don't want to sidetrack that so I'll back away now.

Peter

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are Severe Green Contours Warranted?
« Reply #98 on: February 16, 2012, 03:48:54 PM »
Peter,

I don't think you are sidetracking anything in this topic.

One more thing, I would also say that the overall designs of the Golden Age were more targeted at the male golfer aspiring to be good.  At least there was a lot of writing about the quality of courses elevating the play in America, etc.  Now days, I would agree (to a point) with Melvyn that inclusion, open to all, etc. tends to "dumb down" (not quite the best phrase) in the name of accomodation, speed of play, etc.  Creating great greens is simply not in the design brief of a lot of new courses like some imagine it is.  More likely the brief is "build the smallest green that won't wear out."

Not that all of this is new, its just that proportion of public to private courses has reversed since the Golden Age, and if form follows function, its "get them through the cattle gate, and hope we have a little money left over at the end of the day."  Most of the patterns have been creeping in since day 2 of golf design (presuming the first cry of "unfair" happened by the afternoon of the first day of the first round of the first golf course......
« Last Edit: February 16, 2012, 03:50:54 PM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Are Severe Green Contours Warranted?
« Reply #99 on: February 16, 2012, 03:53:02 PM »
Jeff,

Is that really true?  To me it seems one of the reasons a guy like Tom's courses are so well liked in certain circles is just the opposite:  The greens and surrounds are the great equalizer.  So an average hack like me who can chip and putt loves 'em, while the stick gets frustrated that a green in reg doesn't equal an automatic birdie try/two putt.  The tough championship tracks with lightning greens and no severe contours do the exact opposite IMO.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2012, 04:01:03 PM by Jud Tigerman »
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back