C.B. MacDonald On Greens

[David_Tepper]

From geoffshackelford.com:

"I am against an endless succession of greens with rolls, bumps, and dips. I believe each course or each links should have at least four or five greens, well distributed, that are practically flat after the nature of the ground, with less artificial building up. One gets extremely tired of putting on nothing but molded greens with sudden dips and rises to work out. A few of these, when not overdone, are well enough, but there should be variety." C.B. MACDONALD

[Alex Lagowitz]

Very interesting.
Just curious as to when this was written?

[Jeff_Brauer]

In my mind, he is mixing up two distinct ideas, both of which I agree with.

First, build some greens at ground level, generally following the basic contour
Two- even when building up greens, some should have drastic contours, others gentle contours.

As to the second, I try to draw my sets of green details with a mix of basic slopes from 1.75% to 2.5% thinking golfers might never quite be able to get the read on subtle differences in slope.  I can't really quantify that, but figure it doesn't hurt.

I also might build up a green, but then rather than have gentle rolls throughout, create what I call a "constant plane" green, which isn't flat (they all have to slope some) but has absolutely no internal contour.  These seem to work well on gently uphill holes where even a small nob can block the vision to everything behind it.  This type of green doesn't have to be at ground level.

For that matter, I think golfers do notice when greens are set at varying levels from zero to say 10 feet or more above the fairway level, as well as the slope of the entrance from fairway to green. (esp. seniors who use that slope to roll shots on the green)

[Jim Sherma]

When I saw this quote this morning I found myself agreeing with it. The recent thread on Kinloch in Oz is an example of greens that appear like they would just be exhausting to play hole after hole.

I also think that busy greens become tiring on approach shots if the appropriate kick slopes are not somewhat obvious and large enough to have a reasonable chance of making use of, such as a redan or greens like it that have a general tending slope to make use of.

The opposite is a course that has a busy set of slopes reulting in dramatically different outcomes for shots that are very similar. The course that always sticks in my mind like this was Center Valley Club in Center Valley, PA, now NLE. When the greens would get the slightest bit firm you could hit four or five shots to a green, have all of the balls well struck and landing within a 10 yard wide circle: two balls would get deflected off of the green, one ball staying next to the pin and the fourth getting shot through the green to the back fringe. This example if from personal experience. It got to the point (especially on the front nine, the back was of a different character for the most part) where you would just throw shots at the green waiting for the random outcome because no one I played with were good enough to identify the specific yardage or hit the very small effective targets. When the Nike tour was there the greens were all watered down to dart boards so this did not occur and I heard that was done by design.

[DMoriarty]

Very interesting.
Just curious as to when this was written?

I don't have the actual article in front of me, but I believe it was written in the mid-1920's, 1924 I think.  The quote is from a great American Golfer article written by Grantland Rice and CBM, and is copied in George's excellent book. 

[Scott Weersing]

I too read this quote and then I wondered if Old Mac followed this mantra or guide.

So, are any of the greens at Old Mac built at the same level as the fairway?

Is no. 6?

I think no. 9 green follows this guide. I would also say that the green on the Alps, no. 16 is the same level as the fairway as well as no. 17.

[Keith Cutten]

I too read this quote and found myself in agreement.  However, I would stress the importance that the green contours reflect not only the strategy of each hole by itself, but also the variety of each hole within the overall routing.  Infinite variety 

[Tom_Doak]

I too read this quote and then I wondered if Old Mac followed this mantra or guide.

I don't remember seeing this particular quote before, so we did not think about it much when designing Old Mac.  By the same token, we thought a lot about Macdonald's other courses and the holes where he derived his templates, so if they followed his stated philosophy, we shouldn't have gotten too far away from it.

The nature of the ground at Old Mac was not exactly flat to begin with.  I think of it more in terms of greens that were built at natural grade [whether or not it's at the same level as the fairway].  At Old Mac, these greens were built pretty much at natural grade:

#2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18

That's actually less than average for my own work.

[Bill Brightly]

Very interesting.
Just curious as to when this was written?

I don't have the actual article in front of me, but I believe it was written in the mid-1920's, 1924 I think.  The quote is from a great American Golfer article written by Grantland Rice and CBM, and is copied in George's excellent book. 

Wasn't this in Scotland's Gift?

[Jim_Kennedy]

I don't have the article, but in George's book it looks like this:
                                      
                                                                       On Building Courses
      
      In building a golf course there should be beauty, interest an variety as well as a first class test for first class golf, yet a fair test for all who play. There must be variety for general interest. For this reason I am against an endless succession of rolls, bumps, and dips.
       I believe each course or each links should have at least four or five greens, well distributed, that are practically flat after the nature of the ground, with less artificial building up. One gets extremely tired of putting on nothing but molded greens with sudden dips and rises to work out. A few of these, when not overdone, are well enough, but there should be variety[/i]

The quote borrowed from GS's site isn't what was written by Rice/CBM. 

Bill,
I don't believe the article is in CBM's book.

  

[Sean_A]

From geoffshackelford.com:

"I am against an endless succession of greens with rolls, bumps, and dips. I believe each course or each links should have at least four or five greens, well distributed, that are practically flat after the nature of the ground, with less artificial building up. One gets extremely tired of putting on nothing but molded greens with sudden dips and rises to work out. A few of these, when not overdone, are well enough, but there should be variety." C.B. MACDONALD

A most sensible approach if variety is of importance.  Woking has a set of greens which seems to follow this philosophy and the variety on offer is superb.

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

I wonder how important to the meaning (and to Macdonald) that little clause is, i.e."after the nature of the ground"? You could read it as suggesting that the variety he sought and valued was best manifested by sticking close to the site as it exists/the architects find it. 

Peter

[DMoriarty]

Jim Kennedy,  While I don't have the original article in front of me, I think that George's book may have this part mis-transcribed. I think the reference to the endless succession of rolls, bumps and dips referred to greens, and that the next part follows from that.