Green contours and the rest of the hole

[Tim Gallant]

I couldn't find if this thread existed before but...

In the Evangelist of Golf, there is a story of how, at the advice of Horace Hutchinson, where CB didn't have a template, he basically designed a handful of greens at the National by taking pebbles and tossing them into a small model of said greens. Wherever they landed was more of less where the burrows, mounds, and slopes existed.


That got me thinking because we always talk about how great greens influence the line of the play so well. Depending on where the pin is, that can then alter the proper strategy and line into the hole, etc, etc.


I don't dispute that to be the case, but if you ultimately build an interesting green, does it matter that you consider the rest of the hole? If the internal contours of the green are interesting, with its bowls, burrows, mounds and the rest of it, then surely that will influence play one way or another, right? Therefore, do designers really need to think about the rest of the hole? And why don't more designers (or do they!) just throw pebbles in the air and see where they land?

[Ally Mcintosh]

The chaos theory of green design. Works even better with bunker placements.


Seriously though, interesting green contours are cool and fun, especially when the green site is great and they visually fit the land. BUT.... they are far better utilised when they work with a simple strategy of one side = a better approach angle.


Strategy does make a hole, even if it has been somewhat diminished in these times of long balls, big spin, overwatered greens and a reluctance to be bold and brave amongst much modern day design.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,


I recall, as a 12 year old interested in golf architecture, reading many of the articles the NGF and others put out, including the then new World Atlas of Golf.  It seemed, in theory (1960's style) that there should be a designed relationship between approach shot and contours.


The general idea was along the "long shot, big green" proportional design.  "long shot, easier putt" was espoused as being more fair.  My mentors always made the front of the greens concave, to help shots that hit the green, hold the green.  If a long hole had a narrow green (for whatever reason) they tended to make the green more steeply concave, with up to 3% inward slopes.


Someone wrote that they assigned a difficulty value to each shot on a hole, from 1-3 (easiest to hardest).  They felt a par 4 would be too hard if it was 3-3-3=9, or too easy if 1-1-1=3, and strive for somewhere around 6 on most holes.  While a formula, it makes some sense.  If you manage a successful tee shot on a hard hole, and the reward is an equally hard approach, which yields a hard two put, where is the strategic reward?


Way back in time, George Thomas had some thoughts, too.  He felt short hole greens ought to be steeper front to back, to help golfers "check" their short irons, while long holes ought to be flatter back to front since he anticipated a roll on shot.  For a long time, I felt this should be reversed in modern golf, with longer shots having steeper back to front slope to hold long irons, and flatter ones for short irons (more natural spin, less ball mark damage), and sometimes designed the back to front slope at about 10% of shot length, i.e., 1.5% for 150 yard shot, etc.)  However, greens got too steep for longer shots.  Whenever I researched it, I found 1.33% was all needed to hole average players shots, no matter what the length, and another architect pointed out to me that average players prefer the flatter slopes to help their ball roll all the way to back pins, rather than "kill" near the green front.  So, back to front stays within a pretty narrow range for me, influenced more by green site slope, visibility, etc.


My mentors also taught me the "coin throw" but used it more for landscape plantings or mound placements.


Most of the tour pros I have worked with, or spoken to, prefer the green middle to be mostly the flattish surface that is the safe shot. They also dislike knobs in the middle, because changes of grade midway to the cup are the hardest to read.  They also like to position tee shots to be aiming right into an upslope, and want about 10% or approach length in depth and width.  They will use back slopes to bring balls back closer to pins, and consider any rolling side edges as bigger strategy deterrents than hazards (which they don't think they can hit).  So, if anything, the random hills and valleys would be further apart on long approach shot greens, and perhaps closer (by a bit) on shorter holes, or back to the old "long approach, easier putting and/or larger target" at least to some degree.


Overall, while I understand the random beauty of the coin toss design method, somewhere, deep down, I have to believe that a conscious placement of green contours fits the game of golf better than a haphazard one.  Or, at least, I think players do.


As Forrest Gump might say, that's all I have to say about that......

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:


I use none of the formulas that Jeff Brauer does; I design my greens on the fly, or my associates do and I edit.  But I have yet to resort to choosing the contours at random, dropping pebbles, or the like.  We are always thinking about a preferred line of approach, about the recovery shots around the green and a preferred side to miss on, about what you can or can't see, and about how the shapes work together visually from every angle.


I'm aware as I do this that good golfers are more likely to criticize an eccentric green if it comes on a long par-3 or long par-4, instead of a short one, but there I am inclined to agree with your premise that a good green is a good green when approached with any club.  No matter how short the par-4, some golfer is going to have to hit a 4-hybrid into it, so why shouldn't the scratch player face the same conundrum on occasion?

[Thomas Dai]

Most of the tour pros I have worked with, or spoken to, prefer the green middle to be mostly the flattish surface that is the safe shot. They also dislike knobs in the middle, because changes of grade midway to the cup are the hardest to read.  They also like to position tee shots to be aiming right into an upslope, and want about 10% or approach length in depth and width.  They will use back slopes to bring balls back closer to pins, and consider any rolling side edges as bigger strategy deterrents than hazards (which they don't think they can hit).  So, if anything, the random hills and valleys would be further apart on long approach shot greens, and perhaps closer (by a bit) on shorter holes, or back to the old "long approach, easier putting and/or larger target" at least to some degree.

A very interesting paragraph. Makes me want to consider the opposite aspects......no slight intended by the way. Devils Advocate and all that.


So, if the folks we see on TV......”These guys are good”......prefer flat areas and dislike knobs in the middle of greens, well, let’s have more greens without flat areas in the middle and more knobs instead.
And, if they like to position their tee shots into upslopes, lets have more tee shots landing and hopefully finishing on downslopes (and sideslopes as well).
And while we’re at it, let’s have more rolling edges and more greens that slope down from front to rear.
“These guys are good!”.
Prove it time....courses not designed as they wish.
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

So, if the folks we see on TV......”These guys are good”......prefer flat areas and dislike knobs in the middle of greens, well, let’s have more greens without flat areas in the middle and more knobs instead.
And, if they like to position their tee shots into upslopes, lets have more tee shots landing and hopefully finishing on downslopes (and sideslopes as well).
And while we’re at it, le’s have more rolling edges and more greens that slope down from front to rear.
“These guys are good!”.
Prove it time....courses not designed as they wish.
Atb

That was Mr Dye's attitude, which he passed down to me.  But it might also explain why I'm not on the short list to design courses for professional events ... they don't trust me to obey their rules.

[Thomas Dai]

So, if the folks we see on TV......”These guys are good”......prefer flat areas and dislike knobs in the middle of greens, well, let’s have more greens without flat areas in the middle and more knobs instead.
And, if they like to position their tee shots into upslopes, lets have more tee shots landing and hopefully finishing on downslopes (and sideslopes as well).
And while we’re at it, le’s have more rolling edges and more greens that slope down from front to rear.
“These guys are good!”.
Prove it time....courses not designed as they wish.
Atb

That was Mr Dye's attitude, which he passed down to me.  But it might also explain why I'm not on the short list to design courses for professional events ... they don't trust me to obey their rules.

Ah yes, I have always appreciated the story, and source, of PD and the half pitch shots where “These guys are good!” can’t see the bottom of the pin! More shots like it please!
Atb

[Tim Gallant]

Jeff,


Really appreciate the insight. I had never heard of a rough 'formula' but it certainly makes sense in principal.

Thinking about it more, I don't think a 'coin toss' approach would work for all 18 holes on a course. When the routing is put together and green sites identified, it makes sense that you look at what's on the ground. One green (and hole) might lend itself to a punchbowl type site. There is no reason to fight this for the sake of a theory.


However, the one thing I think a pebble toss approach could help with is originality. If a designer has his/her 'strategic' hat on and is thinking about angles, he/she is likely to default to tried and trusted approaches for the green contours, even if every hole is slightly different. Trump Scotland might be a great example of this. Sure, I'm sure the green contours provide ample strategic decisions, but they aren't particularly inspiring.


My thinking was, as an example, if you have a dog-leg left, and the green contours with the leg (so from left to right) so that it is better to come from the outside of the leg, that may seem odd, but it could keep designers from creating the same holes over and over?


The other niggle in the back of my mind is the theory as it relates to par. What if you put a severe front to back slope on the end of a long par 4? The best way to play it might be to layup and play it as a par5, thus having a chance to stop the ball close to the pin. But we still tend to think of a hole being fair as it relates to par, which the pebble toss might be able to help with. More half-par holes possibly? Maddening in some sense?


Tom,
I agree that the main fault might be visuals, which, with this approach, may not fit the land properly. But what if you started with the pebble toss for the internal contours and worked the rest of the green site around the contours to ensure you still had options/strategy, but had green contours that felt original?


Thomas,


Exactly! Why not throw caution to the wind and create something that throws the rule book out the window. Some will hate it, but I have been thinking lately about what others used to say about a hole that divides opinion is a strong hole. Have the 'great' holes become too accepted? Is there scope to create something that bucks strictly 'strategic' convention?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Tim,


The green contours at Trump are actually quite interesting. It's the repetitive nature of lifted green pads with fall-offs on all sides that lets down the variety. And the green sites themselves are mainly pushed in to the end pockets of dune valleys.


The land should always determine the green shape, style etc... But you can more often than not then work the strategy back to the tee afterwards.


Having a strategic hat on does not mean you need to repeat green shapes and contours.


Although the very occasional pebble toss actually does work.

[Tim Gallant]

Tim,


The green contours at Trump are actually quite interesting. It's the repetitive nature of lifted green pads with fall-offs on all sides that lets down the variety. And the green sites themselves are mainly pushed in to the end pockets of dune valleys.


The land should always determine the green shape, style etc... But you can more often than not then work the strategy back to the tee afterwards.


Having a strategic hat on does not mean you need to repeat green shapes and contours.


Although the very occasional pebble toss actually does work.

Thanks Ally!


As Roger Clemens once said, I may be misremembering, but I thought all of the Trump Scotland greens had similar contours: mainly tiered shelves that played perpendicular to the direction of play. I could be wrong, but after finishing, I'm not sure I could recall the contours on one green in particular. Whereas at courses like Sandwich or Machrihanish, which I think have some of the most innovative internal contours, I can recall most of the greens. Even putting aside the lifted green pads with fall-offs, once on the greens, I didn't find much to get excited about.


I do take your point that having a 'strategy' hat on does not mean you need to repeat green shapes or contours. But I wonder if designers start running out of ideas after several courses. For example, with a C&C course, do you see similar internal green contours, or do they feel original & varied at each course. I certainly think each C&C green will have strategic merit, but are they original works? And does it matter? If they are in a natural setting, and each site is different, then does it matter if the internal contours are more or less the same? Note: I have not played C&C courses - I am just using them as an example, but anyone who has played their courses, I would be interested to know what they think.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Tim,


You do see more patterns in modern green contouring than you do in some of the old links courses where some greens really were just mown out of the ground, micro-bumps an' all.


For instance, take the Eric Iverson shaped 9 greens at Rosapenna. Each and every one of them is merely one, two or three mounds placed internally in a different area to help lift up the green. Really quite simple, following a definite pattern but executed beautifully.


On the other hand, many of the great greens were either nature or a mistake.

[Simon Holt]

Tim:


I use none of the formulas that Jeff Brauer does; I design my greens on the fly, or my associates do and I edit.  But I have yet to resort to choosing the contours at random, dropping pebbles, or the like.  We are always thinking about a preferred line of approach, about the recovery shots around the green and a preferred side to miss on, about what you can or can't see, and about how the shapes work together visually from every angle.


I'm aware as I do this that good golfers are more likely to criticize an eccentric green if it comes on a long par-3 or long par-4, instead of a short one, but there I am inclined to agree with your premise that a good green is a good green when approached with any club.  No matter how short the par-4, some golfer is going to have to hit a 4-hybrid into it, so why shouldn't the scratch player face the same conundrum on occasion?

Tom:


I remember when we were talking about the old 11th, current 8th, at Renaissance.  For many this is the best or certainly one of the best holes on the course but the green provokes is a love or hate reaction.


As a long Par 4 the better players cite that the green is unfair due to the wild nature of the green for a hole over 450 from the whites, let alone 500+ off the tips.  Left is absolute death, zero chance of up and down, but miss right and there are lots of bowls to use to get up and down.


When I asked you about it your reply stuck with me more than most; if players are going to miss a green then it is more than likely on a long par 3, long par 4 or I guess by extension of that theory, a reachable 5.


So if they miss the green and its flat and boring so to be "fair" then they will have a pretty boring chip shot to negotiate.  Conversely, with your greens and specifically the hole at Renaissance, good players will miss the green with a long approach a high percentage of the time but with left with an interesting up and down.


Unfortunately the card and pencil guy confuses interesting and fun with frustrating and unfair.


So is that something that rings true on your long 3s and long 4s subconsciously, or by intent?

[Mark Pearce]

Simon,


One of the greatest par 4s in the world is Sea Headrigg.  Long, tough and a brutal green.  But the green makes the hole.  On my one play I also thought the old 11th at Renaissance was the best hole on a cracking course.

[Tim Gallant]

This quote is from a different thread, but I found very applicable for this thread as well:


  All of the rules and checklists propose that there are certain aspects of a course that are critical to its success, but ultimately the best courses [read greens] stand out because they are different and violate everyone's silly rules.

If one is only concerned with ensuring that the hole, or indeed a green works from a strategic perspective and ticks the boxes, is it yielding an original and great green? Would pebble throwing help this on occasion?

[Simon Holt]

I also mentioned the 3rd hole at North Berwick to Tim as a great example of this. 


Hardest hole on the course with a pretty wild green at the end of it that more often than not requires a delicate chip/pitch and a good putting stroke to walk away with par after inevitably missing the green in two shots.


An example of a hole at North Berwick that I feel could be improved with a more interesting green is the short par 5 8th hole.  From tee to green I feel it's slightly underrated but for the better players if you don't birdie the hole, or even have a long pop at eagle, it's seen as a failure. 


At just over 500 yards it receives long approaches easily as long as you carry a central bunker 30 yards short of the green.


Even though it is well guarded and the large green provides 2 putt issues of its own, I feel with a little more crafting of the green surface, the hole would improve.

[Thomas Dai]

I was wondering when the discussion would shift a bit towards ‘around’ rather than ‘on’ the greens.
Can be great fun missing a green and then trying to make an up-n-down and small, humpy, firm greens tend to result in lots of interesting (fun) up-n-down opportunities.
Atb

[Michael Wolf]

For the architects and builders - doesn't drainage factor into your greens as well? I've always assumed the reason we don't see more punchbowls or at least mini-punchbowls in greens is due to concerns about water settling there?


MW

[Jeff_Brauer]

Michael,


Of course it does, and yes, punch bowls are less common because its hard to allow so much water to drain on the green. I have done it, and put drain tiles as much on the top of the green as the bottom.  That is especially true when you have warm season grasses in the surrounds and bent on the putting green, because some chemicals used are tolerated by Bermuda, but not by bent.


Most greens should drain at least two directions, unless very small, with a minimum of 1.5% slope (I use minimum of about 1.65% to allow for construction error from plan to construction)  And, stay under 3% or so on the max side over most of an average size green.


Other than that, and probably a back to front slope on most greens, I guess anything goes.

[Tom_Doak]

For instance, take the Eric Iverson shaped 9 greens at Rosapenna. Each and every one of them is merely one, two or three mounds placed internally in a different area to help lift up the green. Really quite simple, following a definite pattern but executed beautifully.


On the other hand, many of the great greens were either nature or a mistake.

Ally:


At least he didn't use three mounds on every hole, as do some architects!


The only reason those greens look like that is because another architect had already moved earth in most of the green sites and we did not get to use the smaller bits that nature had provided.  Hopefully it won't be long before we show you what we can really do from scratch.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:


I remember when we were talking about the old 11th, current 8th, at Renaissance.  For many this is the best or certainly one of the best holes on the course but the green provokes is a love or hate reaction.


As a long Par 4 the better players cite that the green is unfair due to the wild nature of the green for a hole over 450 from the whites, let alone 500+ off the tips.  Left is absolute death, zero chance of up and down, but miss right and there are lots of bowls to use to get up and down.


When I asked you about it your reply stuck with me more than most; if players are going to miss a green then it is more than likely on a long par 3, long par 4 or I guess by extension of that theory, a reachable 5.


So if they miss the green and its flat and boring so to be "fair" then they will have a pretty boring chip shot to negotiate.  Conversely, with your greens and specifically the hole at Renaissance, good players will miss the green with a long approach a high percentage of the time but with left with an interesting up and down.


Unfortunately the card and pencil guy confuses interesting and fun with frustrating and unfair.


So is that something that rings true on your long 3s and long 4s subconsciously, or by intent?

Simon:


That's Brian Schneider's green, and one of his best.  It really evolved into what it is because of the green site we chose ... it had to be long and skinny to fit between the hill and wall, and once we decided to try and get the top-shelf hole location, it had to be longer still to take up all that slope.  I guess we might have built it all the way to the wall without the hollow to the right of it, but I just didn't think of that at the time.


My point is we do not set out to build a contrary green like that; we are just willing to build a contrary green like that when the green site suggests it.  Even if it is on a hole where somebody would tell you that's unfair, which I have dismissed for all the reasons you cited.

[Simon Holt]

Thanks Tom.


More specifically in terms of an improvement to an existing hole then.


You have a short par 5 that is pretty strategic tee to green, tight drive, reachable and well guarded green, but it is a large flat surface.  This may or may not be the 8th at North Berwick.....


If you are brought in to juice up a hole like that and don't want to lengthen the hole, how do you increase the challenge for the better golfer if that is the remit?


It's already tight in terms of the driving zone and well guarded around the green for the approach shot.  What, if anything, would you do to a green like that?  Without me incurring a consultancy fee on behalf of my course....which I may or may not be talking about.


I'm genuinely interested.  Great topic, Tim.

[Thomas Dai]

Arn't there 10 greens on the Strand-9 at Rosapenna.........2 x side-by-by par-3 7th?
atb

[Sean_A]

Tom:

I remember when we were talking about the old 11th, current 8th, at Renaissance.  For many this is the best or certainly one of the best holes on the course but the green provokes is a love or hate reaction.

As a long Par 4 the better players cite that the green is unfair due to the wild nature of the green for a hole over 450 from the whites, let alone 500+ off the tips.  Left is absolute death, zero chance of up and down, but miss right and there are lots of bowls to use to get up and down.

When I asked you about it your reply stuck with me more than most; if players are going to miss a green then it is more than likely on a long par 3, long par 4 or I guess by extension of that theory, a reachable 5.

So if they miss the green and its flat and boring so to be "fair" then they will have a pretty boring chip shot to negotiate.  Conversely, with your greens and specifically the hole at Renaissance, good players will miss the green with a long approach a high percentage of the time but with left with an interesting up and down.

Unfortunately the card and pencil guy confuses interesting and fun with frustrating and unfair.

So is that something that rings true on your long 3s and long 4s subconsciously, or by intent?

Simon:

That's Brian Schneider's green, and one of his best.  It really evolved into what it is because of the green site we chose ... it had to be long and skinny to fit between the hill and wall, and once we decided to try and get the top-shelf hole location, it had to be longer still to take up all that slope.  I guess we might have built it all the way to the wall without the hollow to the right of it, but I just didn't think of that at the time.

My point is we do not set out to build a contrary green like that; we are just willing to build a contrary green like that when the green site suggests it.  Even if it is on a hole where somebody would tell you that's unfair, which I have dismissed for all the reasons you cited.

Tom

I am struck by the word "contrary".  How so?

FWIW...I think the 8th is one of the iconic Scottish holes.

Ciao

[Tim Gallant]

Tom:

I remember when we were talking about the old 11th, current 8th, at Renaissance.  For many this is the best or certainly one of the best holes on the course but the green provokes is a love or hate reaction.

As a long Par 4 the better players cite that the green is unfair due to the wild nature of the green for a hole over 450 from the whites, let alone 500+ off the tips.  Left is absolute death, zero chance of up and down, but miss right and there are lots of bowls to use to get up and down.

When I asked you about it your reply stuck with me more than most; if players are going to miss a green then it is more than likely on a long par 3, long par 4 or I guess by extension of that theory, a reachable 5.

So if they miss the green and its flat and boring so to be "fair" then they will have a pretty boring chip shot to negotiate.  Conversely, with your greens and specifically the hole at Renaissance, good players will miss the green with a long approach a high percentage of the time but with left with an interesting up and down.

Unfortunately the card and pencil guy confuses interesting and fun with frustrating and unfair.

So is that something that rings true on your long 3s and long 4s subconsciously, or by intent?

Simon:

That's Brian Schneider's green, and one of his best.  It really evolved into what it is because of the green site we chose ... it had to be long and skinny to fit between the hill and wall, and once we decided to try and get the top-shelf hole location, it had to be longer still to take up all that slope.  I guess we might have built it all the way to the wall without the hollow to the right of it, but I just didn't think of that at the time.

My point is we do not set out to build a contrary green like that; we are just willing to build a contrary green like that when the green site suggests it.  Even if it is on a hole where somebody would tell you that's unfair, which I have dismissed for all the reasons you cited.

Tom

I am struck by the word "contrary".  How so?

FWIW...I think the 8th is one of the iconic Scottish holes.

Ciao

Sean,


Talk me through your thinking on 8. Not saying I disagree. Just want to get your thought process.

[Colin Macqueen]

Tim,
This has been an excellent thread and provides my good self with justification for being addicted to this site!!  I have been a bit lazy and not gone back and read the threads I have offered below but hope they might provide food for thought as you suggested you had not found a relevant thread.


Green Contours on Classic Courses
Green complexes on links courses
The Time Between Shot And Result Is The Key
The paradox of backstop.
C&C and internal green contours...
Wild Greens - The Architect's Crutch?
Does too many contours on a green ruins strategy




Cheers Colin