[Mark Saltzman]

A poster whom always makes me think wrote the following on another thread and it received little traction:

OK, I am an unabashed lover of golden age courses.  As a general rule, I prefer them to modern designs.  However, when I look at these pictures of "the wildest classic era greens still in existence", I honestly don't see that they are really any wilder than what is being produced by some of today's architects.  In fact, I'm not sure that the craziest stuff I have seen isn't some of the modern stuff.  Is the notion that greens were more dramatic in days gone by mostly a romantic fantasy?  If so, what does that say about our fears that escalating green speeds will inevitably lead to the extinction of severely contoured putting surfaces?

I am not as well-travelled as many here, but I tend to agree with this.  Sure, Crystal Downs, Plainfield, Old Town, Oakland Hills have same wonderful and wild greens.  Many more were listed on the wild classic greens thread.  But are they really wilder than many greens on modern courses?

What about the greens at Dismal River?

What about the greens at Devil's Paintbrush?

What about the greens at The Prairie Club?

Chambers Bay's 12th?

Shooting Star's 12th?

Just in Toronto alone I can think of many, many WILD greens on modern courses... many of which are wilder than many or all of the greens on the great classic courses in the city.

I prefer classic greens to modern ones in general.  Somehow it just feels like more thought was put into them.  But, I'm just not sure classic greens are wilder than modern greens.

Thoughts?

[Mac Plumart]

Like you Mark, I may not be the most traveled golfer in the world, but Tom Doak's greens are among the wildest I've ever seen.

[Jay Cox]

Mark, I agree wholeheartedly.  I'm not sure, though, that anyone is really disagreeing.  Tom Doak started the discussion by asking whether it was reasonable to build wild greens on new courses, given that many such greens get softened over time.  The thread you referenced asked whether, given that wild greens tend to get softened over time much more often than mellow greens are made wilder, there are still a fair number of wild greens on classic courses.  Lots of people agreed that there are.  But I think most of those people would agree that there are plenty of wild greens on modern courses, too.

Will those modern greens still be as wild in 20 or 30 or 50 years?  I hope so, but we'll have to wait and see.

[Andy Troeger]

Mark,
I agree with you. I'm not familiar with all the examples you provided, but there are many more. Kingsley Club, Black Mesa, Lost Dunes...the list could go on and on.

I don't buy that classic architects put more thought into green complexes than many of today's modern architects--at least not as a generalization. It depended on the architect and the course then and I think that still holds true. For some reason I think we hold today's architects to a higher standard. I think with the benefit of time, today's best courses will stand up pretty well with the current classics.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

You guys should come to Philly and visit KBM's Lederach and see some really wild greens.

[Kalen Braley]

I think the problem with this thread is people are only thinking of the best of the best courses that we as golf geeks are all familiar with.

Instead of focusing on the few data points on the margins, think about the thousands of munis built in the last 40-50 years with plain ol vanilla greens.  As I think about all the lower end munis, (1-4 on the Doak Scale), I've played in Utah, California, Washington, and Idaho, they far outnumber the few outliers like Wine Valley, Chambers, and Thanksgiving Points with actual interesting greens....

A quick check of my spreadsheet of all the courses I've played has the plain ol vanilla modern munis outweighing the interesting modern classics at 10-1.

[Tom_Doak]

Mark S:

Yes, there are probably more wild greens on modern courses than those that remain on classic courses.  And hopefully we haven't been wrong to build them all.

The one difference I would note is the SIZE of those wild greens.  Crystal Downs and White Bear Yacht Club are two of the wildest sets of greens mentioned, and between them I think there's only one green that is over 6000 square feet.  To me, it's almost mind-blowing that they could pack so much contour into such a small area ... but of course they weren't thinking about 3% maximum pin positions and green speeds of 10 or more.  

The more I've worried about such things, the bigger my greens have gotten, to allow for all the contour.  But, bigger is not better, when it comes to the cost of maintaining a golf course.  So, one of these days I may build a course with smaller and flatter greens.  Somewhere.

P.S. to Steve:  If they go to Lederach to see wild greens, they should go to Stonewall (North), too.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak and a few others may be the exception, but, classic greens are INHERENTLY wilder than modern day greens.

[Andy Troeger]

Kalen,
Your post seems to assume that there were no "average munis" build in the old days? I've never had that impression, although many of them NLE. 

A lot of older greens are more pitched than some of their modern counterparts, but I don't think I've seen any classic greens with more internal contour than some of the modern gems listed.

Patrick,
You're more familiar with the classics than I am, so I can't refute your statement beyond what I stated in my original post. Perhaps my tune will change once I visit a few more of the great classics.

[Sven Nilsen]

If Modern means 1960 on, and you're looking at the total list of all courses built in the last 50 or so years, the classic courses may indeed have an edge. 

If you look at the group of courses built from 1995 on, the latest "renaissance" in golf course design has provided some of the wildest greens ever built. 

This says something about the types of courses that were being built in the 1960's, 70's and 80's. 

[Mike_Trenham]

Well designed classic era greens have more slope.  Well designed modern greens have more internal contours.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy,

While some may cite a few modern courses with wild greens, modern day green speeds inherently prevent modern day greens from having the extreme contours and slopes found in classic courses when speeds were slower.

If anything, the recent softening of the 2nd green at PV should be exhibit 1 in support of that statement.

[JC Urbina]

Mark,

I found a very interesting modern green at Laural Links, on the North fork of Long Island.  It is a Kelly Blake Moran design, the 10th hole is a par 3 and is one of the most interesting green complexes I have seen.  I only got to play it once but I am sure it if I played ten times in a row it would never get dull.  Lots of movement over a large area very distinct pinning areas with a nice flow in between the flatter areas.  I am curious if any one else on GCA has seen this course>

I think the impressive thing about this course is the number of interesting greens, one right after another.  Would like to know who was shaping these greens or if KBM shaped them himself.

[Sven Nilsen]

Andy,

While some may cite a few modern courses with wild greens, modern day green speeds inherently prevent modern day greens from having the extreme contours and slopes found in classic courses when speeds were slower.

If anything, the recent softening of the 2nd green at PV should be exhibit 1 in support of that statement.

Pat:

I don't think you have this quite right. 

You're correct that classic courses are being softened due to the desires for faster green speeds.

But you neglect to acknowledge that some modern courses are being built with greens intended to be maintained at slower speeds.

[Ed Oden]

Mark, I am reasonably certain that your "Thoughtful GCA.com Poster" is an idiot.  Using current photographs to evaluate golden age greens only works if those greens haven't changed over the years.  My guess is that very few of the "wildest classic era" greens referenced in the other thread haven't been touched since their original versions.  To the extent they have evolved, I'd be willing to bet that almost all changes softened their contours.  So I suspect that, for the most part, what we are seeing today in golden age greens is less "wild" than their original design.  On the other hand, with respect to those golden age greens that have in fact survived without modification since their inception, wouldn't a century or so of top dressing and lost green size actually accentuate their severity?  Bottom line is I'd be hesitant to draw any conclusions one way or the other about the severity of old greens based on their current state.

[Andy Troeger]

Patrick,
I think Sven responded for me! There are quite a few modern courses that are being designed with "slower" green speeds in mind. Perhaps the "average" or "median" classic course classic course would end up being inherently wilder because of the speed issues, but I don't think we'll ever get enough statistical data to know for sure. I do get what you're saying now about inherently, but its definitely not always true.

[Jay Cox]

It seems like we're discussing two different questions:
(1) Were classic greens wilder than moden greens on average when they were built? 
(2) Are classic greens wilder than modern greens now, including both selection bias in what remains and any softening that's happened over the years?

Patrick's statement about green speeds seems highly relevant to (1).  I understood Mark's original post to be about (2).  Both are interesting questions, but the answers very well might be different.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sven and Andy,

Which one's ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()