16th Green at North Berwick.... Built today: If someone...

[Matthew Essig]

built a green that severe and tricky to putt on today, there would be bombardments of complaints and the green's severity and character would be reshaped and be toned-down. Will new designs always be more restrained and modest to the older counterparts? Discuss.

[Jim_Kennedy]

No complaint from me - greens like that make golfing worthwhile. 

[John Foley]

I think if this green ended up at a resort course where you get a lot of one hitters / people who don't understand or appreciate the architecture it would be a disaster and probably wouldn't last long. At a private course where the owner / members "get it" I could see something close, but not this dramatic.

Given that, what is the most dramatic green built in the last 10 years and how would it compare? Is anything at Old Macdonald even remotely resembles this as that would be about the only strong candidate course?

The one green from a newer course I've seen that reminds me subtly of this would be the 13th @ Kingsley.

[Tom_Doak]

The 1st green at Old Macdonald has similar elements.

Mr. Keiser, fearing complaints, asked the staff to keep the holes cut on the lower part of the green instead of on either of the plateaus.

[Greg Tallman]

The 1st green at Old Macdonald has similar elements.

Mr. Keiser, fearing complaints, asked the staff to keep the holes cut on the lower part of the green instead of on either of the plateaus.

Do you have a picture of this green?

Is the limited hole location edict still in practice?

[Greg Tallman]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRv2jLzR_ZISwgiC73xtv_OVEPcUTUd4tWRA_2IOgIWVV0hzdwh

Is this it?

[Sean_A]

I think the Castle's 14th is somewhat patterned on Gate except that is tougher to putt.



Ciao

[Mark Bourgeois]

built a green that severe and tricky to putt on today, there would be bombardments of complaints and the green's severity and character would be reshaped and be toned-down.

Correct. The one or two examples brought forth confirm this -- if it were a universal truth there would be no need to trundle out the exception or two that proves the rule.

Will new designs always be more restrained and modest to the older counterparts?

There are always exceptions (see above) but as a rule yes. Golfers do not want much luck in their golf courses, golf course design has normed to
(homogeneous) standards vs 100+ years ago, and sponsors are risk averse. If through some miracle this ethos of design returned, whenever the fight comes down to modern agronomy vs the design, modern agronomy wins. So courses that embody this philosophy get built...then "softened."

[Ally Mcintosh]

built a green that severe and tricky to putt on today, there would be bombardments of complaints and the green's severity and character would be reshaped and be toned-down.

Correct. The one or two examples brought forth confirm this -- if it were a universal truth there would be no need to trundle out the exception or two that proves the rule.

Will new designs always be more restrained and modest to the older counterparts?

There are always exceptions (see above) but as a rule yes. Golfers do not want much luck in their golf courses, golf course design has normed to
(homogeneous) standards vs 100+ years ago, and sponsors are risk averse. If through some miracle this ethos of design returned, whenever the fight comes down to modern agronomy vs the design, modern agronomy wins. So courses that embody this philosophy get built...then "softened."

Mark's two points hit the nail on the head.

[Sean_A]

built a green that severe and tricky to putt on today, there would be bombardments of complaints and the green's severity and character would be reshaped and be toned-down.

Correct. The one or two examples brought forth confirm this -- if it were a universal truth there would be no need to trundle out the exception or two that proves the rule.

Will new designs always be more restrained and modest to the older counterparts?

There are always exceptions (see above) but as a rule yes. Golfers do not want much luck in their golf courses, golf course design has normed to
(homogeneous) standards vs 100+ years ago, and sponsors are risk averse. If through some miracle this ethos of design returned, whenever the fight comes down to modern agronomy vs the design, modern agronomy wins. So courses that embody this philosophy get built...then "softened."

Yes, where N Berwick gets away with its Gate green is because there is only one wild green on the course...plus there are other holes with cool features which make the green seem reasonable...it makes sense in its context. The Castle Course example is extreme, but one of several examples on the course which makes golfers start to think of Mickey Mouse.  If archies want to introduce some wild stuff they need to do so sparingly, in context and with a broader mix of subtle greens/features.  I think this is one reason why I like Woking's an Huntercombe's greens so much, there are all sorts of types whereas modern guys tend toward types.  I can look at Renaissance and think I would have preferred a few more greens which are "simple" concepts relying on slope alone rather than getting into contour. 

Ciao 

[Tom_Doak]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRv2jLzR_ZISwgiC73xtv_OVEPcUTUd4tWRA_2IOgIWVV0hzdwh

Is this it?

Greg:  No, that picture you have is of the 14th green at Old Mac.  It's not quite as severe as it looks in the picture [the plateaus are bigger than in North Berwick] ... and you are coming into it uphill from far side of the pic, so it's laid out across the line of play instead of along it, and it doesn't fall off in the back but instead has a sloped backstop.  I've never heard anyone complain about that particular green as being wild, but maybe that goes to prove Sean's point.

[Niall C]

Mark B

Interesting point you make about modern designs not having as wild greens.

Two comments to add; will the advent of super rich golf developers not give an opening for more "risky" type design ? In other words would a Keiser or Kohler type person be more inclined to go with a wild green than a club committee or a development company board ?

Secondly the Gate green isn't really a heavily contoured green in some respects. It basically has 3 levels with sharp drop off's between each level. Also, as more and more coastal courses get built, the general windiness of the site will dictate the green speeds as much as the agronomy so perhaps there is still hope.

Sean

I'm struggling a bit in thinking about the Gate green being in keeping with the context of the course. If you look at the hole in isolation it's pretty flat. Likewise much of the rest of the course with the exception of the middle portion eg 4th - 6th and 13th - 15th. I'm not at all knocking it, in fact I love it, I just don't see it either blending in or being in context, neither of which gives me a problem.

Niall

[Niall C]

BTW Matthew that second photograph is stunning. The sort of panoramic shot that would make a great poster. Thanks for posting.

Niall

[Tony_Muldoon]

Mark B

Interesting point you make about modern designs not having as wild greens.

Two comments to add; will the advent of super rich golf developers not give an opening for more "risky" type design ? In other words would a Keiser or Kohler type person be more inclined to go with a wild green than a club committee or a development company board ?

This may or may not be relevant but in this day and age where the rich are truly RICH, I have concluded they are a bunch of boring farts!

Where are the follies?
The grand designs?
The bonkers mistresses?
The patronage of outstanding artists?
The private Opera House/Golf Course/reimagined landscape?
The eccentric eldest son?

IN the past you could make a case for money but these days the obsession with having more and more of it just makes people boring.

Relevant or just plain dumb?  Answers on a £50 note please.

[Sean_A]

Well Niall, I play the Gate and it doesn't jar or surprise me only because of what I have already seen earlier.  Thats all I meant by its context.  Birkdale changes a green to something more interesting than any other on the course an people complain that it is not in keeping with the other greens (ie out of context).  Same for Hoylake.  Yet neither is remotely as different from the other greens as is Gate.   

Ciao

[Bill_McBride]

Well Niall, I play the Gate and it doesn't jar or surprise me only because of what I have already seen earlier.  Thats all I meant by its context.  Birkdale changes a green to something more interesting than any other on the course an people complain that it is not in keeping with the other greens (ie out of context).  Same for Hoylake.  Yet neither is remotely as different from the other greens as is Gate.   

Ciao

Sean, which is the out of context green at Hoylake?   I recall #10 Open / #8 usual routing as pretty sloped, but no single green there really strikes me as out of line with the other 17. 

[Adam Lawrence]

I think Sean means the replacement green built at the Royal hole (17 on normal course, 1 on Open routing).

[Bill_McBride]

I think Sean means the replacement green built at the Royal hole (17 on normal course, 1 on Open routing).

Could be but even that wasn't too different from the rest, maybe a bit deeper. 

[Paul Gray]

Put simply, green speeds......

[Don Mahaffey]

built a green that severe and tricky to putt on today, there would be bombardments of complaints and the green's severity and character would be reshaped and be toned-down. Will new designs always be more restrained and modest to the older counterparts? Discuss.

No, not in every case

[Tom_Doak]

built a green that severe and tricky to putt on today, there would be bombardments of complaints and the green's severity and character would be reshaped and be toned-down. Will new designs always be more restrained and modest to the older counterparts? Discuss.

No, not in every case

Don:

That's why I've always said Wolf Point is a special case.  When you have a private course, and any guest plays with the one of the guys who built it, you don't hear the same sort of feedback as when you charge people $150 and send out 200 people on their own and see what they have to say. 

That's probably the same reason some other one-man ventures are making the GOLF DIGEST top 100 list ... and why so many clubs give the panelist class red-carpet treatment.

I'm not saying a lot of people wouldn't like the green pictured, but you would certainly get some complaints, too, and at some courses it doesn't take much complaint to have the management considering a change.

[Peter Pallotta]

This made me think:

For as long as golf has been played, any one stroke has always been worth one stroke. That is, whether it was a hundred years ago or just last week, a 200 yard drive counted as 1 stroke, and a 150 yard approach counted as 1 stroke, and so did a 10 foot putt, or even a tap in.

One of the traditional -- and unique -- features of the game (and one that was traditionally supported by and reflected in the architecture of its fields of play) is that brute strength (in the form of a massively long drive) was "valued" (in terms of a golfer's scores) no more or no less than finesse (in the form of holing a curling 8 foot putt). That's always been important facet of the ethos of golf: young or old, strong or savvy, golfers of all types could find their way to a good score specifically because of how this score was measured.

This has been true, as mentioned, since the game began; and yet, something has changed over the decades. Yes, the long drive is now still 'counted' just the same as an 8 foot putt; and yet, in many ways the 'value' of those two kinds of strokes has, over the years, been increasingly 'weighted' more and more towards the former and away from the latter. Courses have been getting longer for decades while at the same time greens have been getting flatter/less contoured -- the long drive valued ever more, and touch on and around the greens ever less.

Looking back, the 16th at NB reflects a time in golf/in the game's ethos when the short putt was not only 'scored' but also 'actually valued' as much as the long drive. What TD and others are doing, as in the 1st at OM, is returning the game to that kind of value system, i.e. they are 're-balancing' its elements and in this sense (along with others) trying to return the game to its fundamental roots.

I think that this re-balancing, more than any other element/aspect (like 'minimalism' or 'strategic options' or 'natural bunkers'), is the real and important 'renaissance'.  The courses of the so-called Dark Ages were't bad courses, and I don't even think they were bad designs. But in general they were courses/designs that dramatically re-balanced golf's value-system, for a variety of technological and economic reasons  -- and did so, I'd suggest, without even realizing it. 

Peter

[Don Mahaffey]

Tom Doak,
I'm sick of that argument being put forward by you and others like Brauer.

Yes, we had a free hand, but we still built what we built, and if we get a free hand again, we'll build something cool again.

You listen to the complaints and appease the masses, we'll keep looking for the chance to do something special.

[Don Mahaffey]

And you of all people to try and say something doesn't count because there aren't enough people around to complain about it.
Exactly what does someone complaining have to do with what is good or not?

Matthew,
I think you have your answer. When you try to build something that will elicit the fewest amount of complaints vs building something great, you get to where we are today.

[Sven Nilsen]

The 1st green at Old Macdonald has similar elements.

Mr. Keiser, fearing complaints, asked the staff to keep the holes cut on the lower part of the green instead of on either of the plateaus.

Do you have a picture of this green?

Is the limited hole location edict still in practice?

Tom will be happy to know that the left side plateau is used on a regular basis.  I have yet to see the back right tier used.

Sven