The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture

[Jeff Blume]

Jeff,

I couldn't agree more.  Putting on a green that is stimping at 7 or 8 is much more challenging to make the 20 foot birdie putt.  The second putt is usually easier though.

For what it is worth, we learned our lesson at Redstone and have not approached speeds of 15 since that day (13 for the tournament is more the norm).

[Tony Ristola]

One thing that puzzles me is that the primary stated aim of this work is to stiffen the challenge for the elite players. Does any one else wonder whether the tinkering they are doing will make the course more difficult for the elite players by a measurable amount? Or is just that they feel the need to be seen to be doing something to toughen the course. For example, how does filling in a hollow in the middle of the 7th fairway (and turning it into some sort of mound) increase the challenge for the elite player?

I hope some of the semi-proponents of these changes, could answer my question. Because if you can't then the primary mission of these changes is pointless.

All this is baffling. As for the 7th...

I drove my ball into the hollow in front of Shell's during my first trip around The Old Course. It was memorable, as was the tee shot over the hill of gorse. I can't understand why they're making this change; to me it would seem they're making it easier, not tougher. Doesn't the hollow assist balls to feed into the bunker?

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

I couldn't agree more.  Putting on a green that is stimping at 7 or 8 is much more challenging to make the 20 foot birdie putt.  The second putt is usually easier though.

For what it is worth, we learned our lesson at Redstone and have not approached speeds of 15 since that day (13 for the tournament is more the norm).

Here's the problem with my theory.
If we ever did return to our senses (I remember the greens rolling 8 at Long Cove when it was #1 in South Carolina and #19 in the country)

Almost every new course built(and all the old ones that have been recontoured to accomodate faster speeds) won't have enough slope to provide interesting putting, (to say nothing of already having lost the slopes so integral to making angles matter)
I'm guessing Redstone at 7 is a snooze on the greens if they were able to function at 15!!

[Don_Mahaffey]

Sad that the debate has turned from "should they work on TOC", to "lets wait and see if the work is good". And lets be honest, its not like any architect who is a member of the American or European society is going to call the work bad or poor. As big as the backlash has been, I remain very surprised it isn't bigger and more powerful. Dawson apparently correctly factored the predictable negative noise would be drowned out by apathy and those in the industry taking the "wait and see" approach.

Flattening out the greens so they can be kept faster and gaining hole locations? I'll bet anyone here that more hole locations across the course will be lost due to increased speed then gained by softening some of the worlds best and most iconic greens. And the argument that lowering the back of 11 equals faster greens and less likely hood of weather delays due to high winds blowing balls around. Does that make sense to anyone?

Firmness and slope are what challenge great players. All the tournaments have fast greens, but none of them had the Old Course greens. Before long we will not have those either.  

I'm still waiting for Dawson or Hawtree to tell us the course is better now. They'll say they made it harder (I think they've made it easier) for the elite players, but I bet they never say its actually better, at least never honestly say it.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Jeff,

I couldn't agree more.  Putting on a green that is stimping at 7 or 8 is much more challenging to make the 20 foot birdie putt.  The second putt is usually easier though.

For what it is worth, we learned our lesson at Redstone and have not approached speeds of 15 since that day (13 for the tournament is more the norm).

Here's the problem with my theory.
If we ever did return to our senses (I remember the greens rolling 8 at Long Cove when it was #1 in South Carolina and #19 in the country)

Almost every new course built(and all the old ones that have been recontoured to accomodate faster speeds) won't have enough slope to provide interesting putting, (to say nothing of already having lost the slopes so integral to making angles matter)
I'm guessing Redstone at 7 is a snooze on the greens if they were able to function at 15!!

JW, Redstone is a snooze no matter how fast the greens.

[William_G]

Jeff,

I couldn't agree more.  Putting on a green that is stimping at 7 or 8 is much more challenging to make the 20 foot birdie putt.  The second putt is usually easier though.

For what it is worth, we learned our lesson at Redstone and have not approached speeds of 15 since that day (13 for the tournament is more the norm).

Here's the problem with my theory.
If we ever did return to our senses (I remember the greens rolling 8 at Long Cove when it was #1 in South Carolina and #19 in the country)

Almost every new course built(and all the old ones that have been recontoured to accomodate faster speeds) won't have enough slope to provide interesting putting, (to say nothing of already having lost the slopes so integral to making angles matter)
I'm guessing Redstone at 7 is a snooze on the greens if they were able to function at 15!!

JW, Redstone is a snooze no matter how fast the greens.

hahaha, thank you

[Jeff Blume]

Don,

I am not advocating speeding up the greens on the Old Course at all.  On the contrary, I think that all major championship golf should place less emphasis on par, and I believe I indicated that in my above post.  The comment made with regard to faster green speeds and the wind is completely valid whether you want to believe it or not.  I have personally played the 11th green in windy conditions before the Dunhill Cup, and unless you were able to hole a twenty to thirty yard pitch from the approach the hole could not be completed.  I attempted the shot four or five times only to have the ball return to my feet after it didn't go in.  The same thing happened to all four members of our group so we simply picked up and moved on to the 12th tee.  If the R&A insists on increasing the green speeds for the Open at the Old Course, then the modifications to the putting surface will have to be done whether we like it or not.

In the final analysis, I don't think the Links Trust, Mr. Dawson, Mr. Hawtree or the town of St. Andrews gives a flying @#% about the opinions of any poster on this site.

As for criticism by ASGCA or EIGCA members, you will not see much from us as there are ethical issues that pertain to public criticism.  Further, I do not know the design parameters or constraints that Mr. Hawtree is working under.  Finally, all design opinion is subjective so I am sure that there are people out there who do not hold the views of the majority of posters on this site.

[Ben Sims]

As for criticism by ASGCA or EIGCA members, you will not see much from us as there are ethical issues that pertain to public criticism. 

Jeff,

Here lies part of the issue.  Some would argue that both organization's policies against criticism amount to complacency in the field of golf architecture.  It breeds a group-think atmosphere where the hierarchy is more important than the work.  You can say that the members of both organizations are better than that.  But you'd be wrong.  History shoes us that the most high and noble of organizations that foster this type of environment are terrible at recognizing issues within the hierarchy. 

That members of the ASGCA and EIGCA would feel that their policies of "non-criticism" are more important than the massive historical significance of The Old Course says a lot about those organizations.

[Sean Walsh]

Jeff,

The only ethical consideration I can see to the lack of subjective consideration is that they are not prepared to criticise ill-thought out works (not necessarily these works we are discussing) as they do not want to risk deterring any clubs from considering reconstructive works that make up what I would assume is a sizeable chunk of the revenue from their members practices.

Rather than take any sort of principled stand they protect their business model to the detriment of the game on which that business is based.

[Mike_Young]

Why does the industry continue to dismiss height of cut so easily and let it off the hook?  S much of what has been done to greens in the last 30 years comes down to height of cut.  Ask a tour player how much further his drive rolls in tournament conditions vs. his home course.   I am opposed to  any"feature" changes at TOC but one has to admit that the one thing that forces these changes is green speed.    Courses striving to have better conditions than their neighbor  along with a consumer who is educated to think green is better have done more harm to these places than any ball or driver.  JMO

[jeffwarne]

Why does the industry continue to dismiss height of cut so easily and let it off the hook?  S much of what has been done to greens in the last 30 years comes down to height of cut.  Ask a tour player how much further his drive rolls in tournament conditions vs. his home course.   I am opposed to  any"feature" changes at TOC but one has to admit that the one thing that forces these changes is green speed.    Courses striving to have better conditions than their neighbor  along with a consumer who is educated to think green is better have done more harm to these places than any ball or driver.  JMO

+1
To say nothing of what it does to cost
and rendering chipping and putting damn near impossible due to extreme hand mowed  tightness often accompanied by softness created by the moisture it takes to to keep it alive

[Don_Mahaffey]

Don,

I am not advocating speeding up the greens on the Old Course at all.  On the contrary, I think that all major championship golf should place less emphasis on par, and I believe I indicated that in my above post.  The comment made with regard to faster green speeds and the wind is completely valid whether you want to believe it or not.  I have personally played the 11th green in windy conditions before the Dunhill Cup, and unless you were able to hole a twenty to thirty yard pitch from the approach the hole could not be completed.  I attempted the shot four or five times only to have the ball return to my feet after it didn't go in.  The same thing happened to all four members of our group so we simply picked up and moved on to the 12th tee.  If the R&A insists on increasing the green speeds for the Open at the Old Course, then the modifications to the putting surface will have to be done whether we like it or not.

In the final analysis, I don't think the Links Trust, Mr. Dawson, Mr. Hawtree or the town of St. Andrews gives a flying @#% about the opinions of any poster on this site.

As for criticism by ASGCA or EIGCA members, you will not see much from us as there are ethical issues that pertain to public criticism.  Further, I do not know the design parameters or constraints that Mr. Hawtree is working under.  Finally, all design opinion is subjective so I am sure that there are people out there who do not hold the views of the majority of posters on this site.

Jeff, you knew what you were getting into when you joined GCA, right?

I understand you did not personally advocate speeding up the greens, but that is usually the outcome when you soften greens for tournament play. And yes, I know that higher speed and wind is an issue. I learned that the heard way during first stage PGA qualifying many years ago when I pushed for speed a little too hard.

Its the push for speed to make it tougher which I do not understand. Yes, fast greens require a little more "nerve", but for many of those guys its the norm as they are used to flattish, fast greens. I go to Redstone every year for the tournament. I know all about the mantra to try and mimic AGNC conditions, and the course is always in outstanding condition, but the greens offer little challenge to those guys. Slow 'em down a couple of feet and add some serious contour, and it would be a lot more interesting then seeing who can make the most 20 footers.

We are at the point in agronomy where if you have the money and want to spend it, we can get the greens just as fast as you want. But where is the interest that? Where is the challenge to ball striking, short game and putting. You don't have to keep greens at 7 or 8 to add contour. Cap the speed at 10, get creative, and you will challenge the best in the world in all facets of their game.

If there is anything you society guys should be advocating its slowing greens and building more contour. It would be better for the game because we'd spend less chasing speed, more interesting for all player, and our courses could be more distinctive rather then starting to all look alike. There are also agronomic advantages to more contour with better surface drainage and less reliance on internal drainage, which means we can spend less building our courses. More contour, less speed = greens that are less costly to build (if one has the courage to look outside the USGA system), less costly to maintain, less inputs like water and pesticides, and more fun to play.

The Open at TOC was always cool for me because they matched the speed to the greens, now they are reversing that just like every other venue. Whether Dawson or anyone else cares, I see that as a major step back.

[jeffwarne]

Quote from Don Mahaffey

"Its the push for speed to make it tougher which I do not understand. Yes, fast greens require a little more "nerve", but for many of those guys its the norm as they are used to flattish, fast greens. I go to Redstone every year for the tournament. I know all about the mantra to try and mimic AGNC conditions, and the course is always in outstanding condition, but the greens offer little challenge to those guys. Slow 'em down a couple of feet and add some serious contour, and it would be a lot more interesting then seeing who can make the most 20 footers.

We are at the point in agronomy where if you have the money and want to spend it, we can get the greens just as fast as you want. But where is the interest that? Where is the challenge to ball striking, short game and putting. You don't have to keep greens at 7 or 8 to add contour. Cap the speed at 10, get creative, and you will challenge the best in the world in all facets of their game.

If there is anything you society guys should be advocating its slowing greens and building more contour. It would be better for the game because we'd spend less chasing speed, more interesting for all player, and our courses could be more distinctive rather then starting to all look alike. There are also agronomic advantages to more contour with better surface drainage and less reliance on internal drainage, which means we can spend less building our courses. More contour, less speed = greens that are less costly to build (if one has the courage to look outside the USGA system), less costly to maintain, less inputs like water and pesticides, and more fun to play.

The Open at TOC was always cool for me because they matched the speed to the greens, now they are reversing that just like every other venue. Whether Dawson or anyone else cares, I see that as a major step back. "

[/quote]

Post of the year

Actual contour also affects approaches and recoveries, which can provide real meaning to preferred angles, and no doubt it's a lot easier to maintain firmness in greens that are not clinging to life at marginally sustainable cutting heights and speeds

[Mike_Young]

Hash mark width,  base path length,  basketball court length.  Think what changing them would do to their respective games.   SPEED

[Jeff Blume]

Don,

Well said and I agree.  With regard to green contours increasing, I am okay with that in some applications.  Rolls, hollows, swales and ridges provide alot of interest in putting, but I am not a big fan of terraces.  I have seen them cause many a superintendent plenty of headaches.

As a newbie I find this discussion fascinating.  I have been writing a monthly article on aspects of golf course architecture for a local golf magazine here in Texas for three years now and was beginning to run out of material  .  Guess what I will probably right on this month?  Not that anyone reads the articles anyway.  They rarely make it past the "Cart Girl of the Month".

[Rich Goodale]

Welcome to the forum, Jeff B.  You write good.

Can I suggest that you suggest to your editor that "Old Daw Anderson" be made honorary "Cart Girl of the Month" whenever your piece on the Old Course is publsihed?

[Jeff Blume]

Very nice Rich!  I'll see if I can get that done.

[paul cowley]

If I were God I'd cap green speeds at 10...nothing good happens beyond it....in playing or design.

[Sean_A]

I've said forever that there is no reason for double digit green speeds, but I suspect clubs and courses would a lot more convincing about this then it would take convincing them about not building back tees.

Ciao

[Steve Okula]

I was in New York a few weeks ago, and I met with several golf course superintendents, including Steve Rabideau of Winged Foot, and Andy Wilson of Bethpage Park, both have hosted a number of high profile events, including U.S. Opens.

I asked them specifically about green speeds. Steve, after expressing his contempt for the Stimpmeter, admitted the WF greens run 10'6" - 11'0" for daily member play, and up to 12'0" for special events. Andy at Bethpage claimed an average speed on the Black course of 10'0", and again up to 12'0" for a major.

Neither man spoke at all of exceeding 12',0" for any reason. It's hard to believe there are very many courses in the 13'-15' range.

[jeffwarne]

I was in New York a few weeks ago, and I met with several golf course superintendents, including Steve Rabideau of Winged Foot, and Andy Wilson of Bethpage Park, both have hosted a number of high profile events, including U.S. Opens.

I asked them specifically about green speeds. Steve, after expressing his contempt for the Stimpmeter, admitted the WF greens run 10'6" - 11'0" for daily member play, and up to 12'0" for special events. Andy at Bethpage claimed an average speed on the Black course of 10'0", and again up to 12'0" for a major.

Neither man spoke at all of exceeding 12',0" for any reason. It's hard to believe there are very many courses in the 13'-15' range.

What most amazes me is hearing USGA officials citing target numbers such as 14-15.
I guess they could exist, but no way they've had those numbers in the events they cite,but more importantly why talk about is so routuinely, where members can actually think such numbers are pinnable,common, or even desireable.
If your greens need 14-15 to provide challenge and interest, they suck

[Terry Lavin]

If I were God I'd cap green speeds at 10...nothing good happens beyond it....in playing or design.

I'd change my heathen ways...

[Tom_Doak]

I was in New York a few weeks ago, and I met with several golf course superintendents, including Steve Rabideau of Winged Foot, and Andy Wilson of Bethpage Park, both have hosted a number of high profile events, including U.S. Opens.

I asked them specifically about green speeds. Steve, after expressing his contempt for the Stimpmeter, admitted the WF greens run 10'6" - 11'0" for daily member play, and up to 12'0" for special events. Andy at Bethpage claimed an average speed on the Black course of 10'0", and again up to 12'0" for a major.

Neither man spoke at all of exceeding 12',0" for any reason. It's hard to believe there are very many courses in the 13'-15' range.

Steve:

If the greens at Winged Foot were Stimping over 12 feet, you would just putt off most of them, because of the back-to-front tilt which is 3 to 4 % in many areas.  I'm not as familiar with the slopes at Bethpage, but I believe they are quite a bit flatter in general, except for a couple of greens like the 14th and 15th.

[Steve Okula]

Steve:

If the greens at Winged Foot were Stimping over 12 feet, you would just putt off most of them, because of the back-to-front tilt which is 3 to 4 % in many areas. 

Wouldn't the same be true of many, if not most golf courses? I hear people on this site throwing around speeds like 14' and 15' and I don't believe that would be playable for about 95% of courses. It certainly can't be sustainable for any length of time. At 15', what degree of slope could you have and still expect the ball to stop? (Assuming the air is perfectly still, of course.)

[Adam Clayman]

I guess my only question would be how in the world did we get here?

Jeff, My guess is the answer is, consensus.

Proving once again how the majority opinion is often, if not always, wrong.
The irony is that this consensus opinion, is based on the flawed architecture, built since WWII, and, the subsequent card and pencil mindset, that was a result of one dimensional architecture.

Some of us had hoped, that the good folks in Scotland wouldn't fall prey to these particular whims of the day, but alas, we were forewarned, not only by Melvyn, but the actions of the powers that be, prior to this most recent slap in the face.