How best to design greens

[Jon Wiggett]

If you want bold greens, you need scale.


If you begin to think about the greens on the edge, they will be larger than you initially thought.


The exception to this is a small green with tremendous pitch and a fast firm surface.




Another common theme is less bunkering.


Bunkers limit the directions of the surface, tie-ins and the opportunity to have more than one plane. A bowl is great once in a while, 18 times doesn't make a great set of greens.

Andrew,


Either I misunderstand your meaning of bold or I have to disagree with the presumption that it has to have scale. As the two well known examples of Cargate at North Berwick and the 15th at Prestwick show big, bold movement can and often does fit very well on small greens. Indeed, at the course I grew up playing (Dewsbury) the ninth was a rollercoaster of a small green but the best on the course.


I wholeheartedly agree about bunkering though.

[Tom_Doak]

I was just going to say neither Winged Foot nor Crystal Downs has large greens, but man they pack a lot into them.

[Mike_Young]

How many great greens will a great course have?

[Tom_Doak]

How many great greens will a great course have?

A great set of greens is different than trying to make each individual green great.  Context within the course is important.


By the same token, even the flatter greens at Winged Foot and Crystal Downs and Oakmont are way cooler than the best green at most other courses.

[Peter Pallotta]

Many here have done more historical reading than I have, but I've done some -- and in the co-temperaneous articles from the golden age I can't think of many times when I've read descriptions (let alone praises) of the greens themselves; and rarer still is reading the greens being described as 'great' and as 'making' the course, i.e. in-and-of themselves.
All of which is to ask: might be there something to the theory that, if a set of greens is immediately recognized as "great", maybe that means they aren't? 
If they draw so much attention to themselves, if they so obviously stand out (because of dramatic/bold contours etc) as being strategic (relative to the rest of the golf hole) and offering many options, haven't they in a way put the cart before the horse? (Not least because: if we can all see these 'strengths' right away, what is there left to learn/discover over the proverbial 'multiple plays'?)
Might not there be a subtle failure of 'pure craft' at work here when only *one* of the many aspects that comprises quality gca is made so much the centre of attention?  And in turn, might there not be a non-too-subtle 'failure of imagination' on the part of modern-day golfers in our (over) emphasis on 'the greens'?
Sounds like I'm being a smart ass, or just riffing along on my same old riff -- but I don't mean to; I think there is something lurking around there under such questions, even coming from a neophyte like me who may not know how to explain himself better.
Peter     

[Mike_Young]

How many great greens will a great course have?

A great set of greens is different than trying to make each individual green great.  Context within the course is important.


By the same token, even the flatter greens at Winged Foot and Crystal Downs and Oakmont are way cooler than the best green at most other courses.

That's what I was getting at...

[Mike_Young]

How many great greens will a great course have?

A great set of greens is different than trying to make each individual green great.  Context within the course is important.


By the same token, even the flatter greens at Winged Foot and Crystal Downs and Oakmont are way cooler than the best green at most other courses.

That's what I was getting at...

So often we lock ourselves into a hole.  I don't really think great is in a hole.  If the course isn't good then it doesn't mater about one great hole.  Or one great green.   And it's a futile thing to try to do.  As an example, what if you were the top hair stylist in Traverse City and they came to see you from all around.  You might put great hair on some 400 pounders...it's great hair but you are not winning the contest...(I know that sounds cruel)

[Tom_Doak]

Many here have done more historical reading than I have, but I've done some -- and in the co-temperaneous articles from the golden age I can't think of many times when I've read descriptions (let alone praises) of the greens themselves; and rarer still is reading the greens being described as 'great' and as 'making' the course, i.e. in-and-of themselves.

Peter:


That's a good observation.  Dr. MacKenzie built wild greens, but when he wrote about design, it wasn't so much about the greens as it was about hazards and angles.


So what has changed in the past 90 years?  Just the way golf is played, and the way courses are maintained.  Angles past hazards don't make much difference, with the best players hitting wedges into most greens, unless the contours of the green reinforce the strategy and the angles.  And hazards aren't what they used to be, either, now that they all have to present a fair chance of recovery, and are filled with the right sand, with liners underneath.


If you really think about it, the greens are the only thing that's left from the Golden Age.  Maybe that's the bit that's been nagging at you?

[Jerry Kluger]

To me what I have found is that some greens have no relationship to the area near them and how they flow from the sides on to the putting surfaces. I played Roaring Gap, which is a Ross course, and so often you could see a shoulder along the side of the green which became a contour on the green.  There was strategy to playing a shot into the green beyond just hitting it at the flag - use the shoulder to bounce the ball onto the green where the pin is tucked in a corner. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks for those insights, Tom.
Now I feel a bit silly - the thought that, what for me has been a lingering nagging question and near-breakthrough, has all along been a given to top flight architects the last 20 years, who have/have had to use that knowledge in designing courses that not only satisfy but thrill today's golfers. 
That said, yes, it's true that I have trouble wrapping my head around the concept, i.e. getting a picture in my head of golden age-style greens being lifted out of their original context (as one part of the whole hole) and transplanted into a new setting, and yet still working as 'intended'.
But then again, I suppose that very 'intention' is what's changed most of all, from then and now.
Have trouble wrapping my head around that too...
P   

[Thomas Dai]

And more and more courses have become tree-lined over the decades.
Where once there were optional playing angles there is now a pretty one dimensional corridor to play along. And a corridor that is often narrower at ball-flight height than at ground level as the tree canopy hangs over so many corridors.
Atb

[archie_struthers]

 


The question posed was less than perfect , but appreciate everyone chiming in anyway.  When it comes to designing them , we heard some excellent replies to a broad question .




I'm all for broad contour lines though . Multiple , miniaturized internal contours that run randomly are not for me.  Who wants a ten foot putt that breaks five ways . Give me one that continues breaking all the way to the hole anytime.


A good question was set up in our talks about Oakmont. We've discussed it before , but the greens/grass have evolved differently here. The why might never be answered. The greens have "it" !


 We all have local courses that are like this . Here in our area Willdwod CC , now the "Shore Club " have speed and visuality when they are right . A now defunct nine holes next to the electric company in nearby Beesleys Point was similarly blessed . So  how to build them to achieve this might be a better question.


 Anyone else bemoan the new age greens at huge budget clubs as devoid of character agronomically , smooth and fast but almost antiseptic in appearance. A porcelain surface devoid of any features, a too perfect face . That just doesn't do it for me !

[George Pazin]

George-

I've never played Oakmont, but my impressions of the greens are that they are very large, perched with some runaway slopes near the edges, and ultra-fast (13'-14').  Do you think that the heralded history and reputation of the course might have a halo effect on the greens?  Or do the greens make the course what it is?  I wonder if my no-name home course had the same greens whether our members would be asking for even faster conditions (as is reported of Oakmont members for everyday play vs. US Open speeds).  My guess is that they would munity.

Your impressions are wrong. History and rep help, but they (the greens) are special, and they aren't remotely overly fast. The greens don't make the course what it is, everything does - the greens, the routing, the hazards, the variety, the walk, the ambience, the history, etc. In short, the everything.

[Ian Andrew]

Either I misunderstand your meaning of bold or I have to disagree with the presumption that it has to have scale. As the two well known examples of Cargate at North Berwick and the 15th at Prestwick show big, bold movement can and often does fit very well on small greens. Indeed, at the course I grew up playing (Dewsbury) the ninth was a rollercoaster of a small green but the best on the course.

The question was "how best to design greens"


I consider avoiding wear problems a key component to a green design.
A roller coaster on a small surface has wear issues.
That's why I suggested scale is imprortant