Greens at grade

[Thomas Dai]

An observation - greens at grade mostly seem to have very little in the way of difficulty at the rear, in comparison to pushed-up/built-up greens, so over-the-back is often the ‘best miss’ for an errant approach shot.
Is this an accurate observation? And if so what does it say about design, construction and a players method of course management.
Atb

[Bruce Katona]

The best way a "green at grade" can challenge a player would be to have the natural grade fall away from the green front; this way the "green at grade" could follow the contour lines.


Remember that the "at grade green section" has been excavated/cored down at least 2' (70 CM) to allow for proper drainage and the composite green spoil section to be installed so the green elevation get get back to "grade".....one needs to be careful when the green back runs away from the line of play.....too much slope on the turf will cause erosion and wash outs until the turf can be established. 

[Mike Nuzzo]

Where are you seeing your greens at grade?


Are you describing the typical green of sloping from back to front (facing the player) as built up?
I would say greens built at grade can slope in any direction and be located in relation to a hazard in any manner, thereby varying the hardest recovery options.


Cheers

[Mike Nuzzo]

All of the greens at our new 9 hole project will be built at grade.
The following are the greens where one can hit it relatively safely through or just over the green:
2, 4, 5, 8 & 9


Most trouble:
1.Back/Left
2.Front/Right
3.Back left or right
4.Left or right
5.Front
6.Left
7.Right
8.Left
9.Left

[David_Elvins]

An observation - greens at grade mostly seem to have very little in the way of difficulty at the rear, in comparison to pushed-up/built-up greens, so over-the-back is often the ‘best miss’ for an errant approach shot.
Is this an accurate observation? And if so what does it say about design, construction and a players method of course management.
Atb

I think it is an accurate observation.  A lot of pushed up greens have a front to back slope.  Partly because it is easier to build a front to back slope into a pushed up green than a green at grade and partly because there is more impetus to help the golfer stop his approach shot on a green that is pushed up. 

[Thomas Dai]

Mike,
Greens at grade mostly as seen in GB&I. Mainly links, some heathland and of older vintage.
Are there any pix herein or elsewhere of your new 9-hole project? Sounds interesting (I really like what I've seen in photos/video of Wolf Point.....'ground game option' fan that I am).
atb

[Mark_Fine]

Thomas,
I don't follow you at all on this one?  Your generalization must be course specific because I can think of many many examples where it doesn't make sense.
Sorry,
Mark

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thomas,


I think your point generally follows.  Even with a back to front slope of about 2 feet (which is about typical) ground level greens reduce, if not eliminate, the uphill flop shot required from behind the green.  Lower greens tend to keep missed approach shots closer than when hitting banks on elevated greens.  That wasn't always so - the old GBI courses with fw cuts around actually could carry missed shots well away from greens.


I always keep George Thomas' advice (to cross pollinate threads.....) that long par 4 holes ought to have "fair green" behind them, relatively level, because a shot over the green (presuming a back pin) is really a better shot than one coming up short, short left, or short right, and ought not to be punished as much.  And, I generally design long holes greens as low as possible to the ground, because so many golfers will be running shots in and don't need a steep uphill approach area (even 7% or more will kill the roll of a typical senior approaching the green in typical conditions)


Side note, for a long time, I tended to give long approach shot greens more back to front slope, also figuring the average guy would need more help stopping a long shot.  Then someone pointed out that a lower back to front slope would actually help them get the ball to back pins, so I don't do that any more. (From research, for average golfers, 1.33% or so back to front is enough to stop their lower velocity shots)


However, grade level greens can cause some problems.  First, as always, is drainage, as its obviously easier to drain an elevated green. I have also found that the front approach - busy with golfers and several sets of mowers turning there - works better at 4% or more slope to avoid becoming soggy mess.


I also recall playing the Valley Course at TPC Jacksonville, in late afternoon.  That course had ground level greens, and lots of pines casting long shadows, making it almost impossible to distinguish the green surface, which troubled me, and I believe troubles most golfers.  I have found in my own work, that elevating the greens even a few feet tends to highlight them, even when shadows are present.  Of course, the typical back to front slope is typical because it helps stop shots and allows the golfer to see the green surface, too.


So, is elevating a green slightly for those reasons not to be done to avoid the lob pitch from over the green?  Especially considering that maybe 1-3% of golfers will actually be long on any given approach shot?  I agree that a succession of lobs from over the green is annoying, but in reality, it would be nearly miraculous for any one golfer to face more than a few per round.

[Adam_Messix]

There are three at grade greens at the club where I grew up, Chester River Y & CC in Maryland, two of which the miss is short (1 and 16) and the third is long left (2)  The back of 1 and 16 is the most interesting and difficult.  I'm surprised no one has brought up 5 at Merion East.

[Mike_Young]

IMHO lot of BS on this one.  Not many places you can have a green on grade unless you are pure sand.  And often someone will think a green is built on grade but the tie-ins are extremely long earth forms that are difficult to realize for many golfers. 

[Tom_Doak]

IMHO lot of BS on this one.  Not many places you can have a green on grade unless you are pure sand.  And often someone will think a green is built on grade but the tie-ins are extremely long earth forms that are difficult to realize for many golfers.

I'm not sure exactly what everyone's definition is of "at grade", but many/most links in the UK are full of them, and so is Oakmont, which isn't on sand.


If you mean the green is exactly native contour, then I agree there aren't that many recent examples, except in the sand hills.

[Mike_Young]

IMHO lot of BS on this one.  Not many places you can have a green on grade unless you are pure sand.  And often someone will think a green is built on grade but the tie-ins are extremely long earth forms that are difficult to realize for many golfers.

I'm not sure exactly what everyone's definition is of "at grade", but many/most links in the UK are full of them, and so is Oakmont, which isn't on sand.


If you mean the green is exactly native contour, then I agree there aren't that many recent examples, except in the sand hills.

TD,
I'm speaking of native contour....I would consider that to be grade anything else would be an adjusted grade and could blend into the native contour at say a 2:1 slope or a 20:1 slope.  And the 20:1 slope would seem to blend into a perceived native grade uch easier..JMO

[Jeff_Brauer]

My take on the original question was that the front of the green was on grade, not that every inch of it had to conform to natural grade.


It brings to mind something Dick Nugent suggested within a few weeks of working there.  He thought the minimum elevation of the front of the green should be 1.5' above the natural grade as a minimum to account for the USGA layers.  In essence, he didn't like the idea of cutting the sub-grade of front of the green in, for drainage purposes.  Pretty typical of his era (half a generation past Wilson/RTJ) but also practical when working in the clay soils around Chicago.


Also thinking about a few occasions where the front of the green, and its drain tile outlet (which is usually 2 foot below finished grade) is affected (on flat ground) by the elevation difference required to get that pipe at a minimum 1.5% to a lake or stream. If the outlet is at 100, and 100 feet away, the front of the green needs to be 102 or higher, as an example, even if natural grade is a bit less.

[Tom_Doak]

It brings to mind something Dick Nugent suggested within a few weeks of working there.  He thought the minimum elevation of the front of the green should be 1.5' above the natural grade as a minimum to account for the USGA layers.  In essence, he didn't like the idea of cutting the sub-grade of front of the green in, for drainage purposes.  Pretty typical of his era (half a generation past Wilson/RTJ) but also practical when working in the clay soils around Chicago.

Aha!  A precise explanation for why I don't like his work.  A simple rule that makes everything else moot, because drainage has replaced playability as the most important object.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,


Perhaps, but it also brings up the question of whether a foot of vertical typically really affects play?  We have all heard of signature architects making site visits and directing subtle changes all down the fairway, like raise 3", lower here 4", etc.  I have always questioned whether that is show or true design difference.


Of course, the front of the green is very likely to be a place where a foot difference here or there, or a one foot knob on the front center of the green could deflect shots, etc., than any given point in the fairway.  But, its not like Dick ever did anything subtle like that, in fact, he always thought it had to be big or go home, not really believing in any subtly at all as something probably missed by 90% of golfers.  True, but still worthwhile for the 10% who do notice.


On the other hand, 

its not merely a rule of drainage over playability.  The drainage needs to be proper to have proper playability, no? 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

Perhaps, but it also brings up the question of whether a foot of vertical typically really affects play?  We have all heard of signature architects making site visits and directing subtle changes all down the fairway, like raise 3", lower here 4", etc.  I have always questioned whether that is show or true design difference.

Three inches here and four inches there, in the fairway?  Seriously?  Jeez.


I wouldn't have reacted to the "Nugent rule" if he was willing to break it fairly frequently.  But it seems like raising the front of the green a foot and a half just precludes the idea of a fallaway green, or a green with significant contour in front, a la St. Andrews.  Making a rule against that sort of variety is a buzzkill for me.


One of the architects in this neck of the woods had a hard and fast rule of building three mounds behind every green.  EVERY green.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,


The 3-4" story came from a Wadsworth foreman, who had witnessed another company foreman transfer to the Faz organization.  The way he told it, the guy would gripe and complain about minor changes when working as a contractor, but came back to a job soon after, ordering the minor changes he hated so much as a contractor.  There are others, of course.


I agree, the only thing Dick associated "false fronts" with would have been boob jobs.


Your three mound story reminds me that Killian preferred three mounds as well.  When we got the Forest Preserve National (Now George Dunne) contract, Bob and I got together to suggest some variety, even suggesting a starting point as 3 greens each with 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 mounds.  The plans were drawn that way.  It was a Dick and Bob job, but Ken and I went down about a third of the way through shaping.  The no mound green didn't fly at all, he directed three mounds, then managed to get all of the greens built converted over to 3 mounds.......killing most of the variety intended.


I think the only zero backdrop green I ever got built for those two was at Lake Arrowhead (now famous as being the course next door to Sand Valley....) where I built the 11th green in front of beautiful pine back drops which provided great back drop.  He tried to change it, but if we moved the green forward, it would have shortened that par 5 too much, so it stayed.


It really made me try to be sure my work wasn't totally recognizable later in my career (like now.......)


BTW, when doing a MP for a Press Maxwell years ago, an older member who was there said Press had 1, 2, 3 and 4 mound greens, which he said were quite standardized...... as in Press flippantly telling shapers to "give me the standard 4 mound green here.....)