Green contour softening

[Mark_Fine]

I am in the middle of a major renovation project (yes I said renovation vs restoration)    The project includes softening the back to front contours of one of the old push up greens (slope is 7-8% and the green can be near unplayable at times with only a small section that is pinnable).  This is not uncommon on older designs and we have successfully preformed this task on other courses in the past.  Anyone here have any stories or photos to share of a similar exercise done on their course (both good and bad results)?  I still remember I believe it was the 11th green at Fenway dropping a ball on the back edge and watching it roll off the front    I know Gil wanted to tweak this one but not sure if it ever happened.  Sometimes there a few options on greens like this if you want to make them playable.  Fortunately the process is a little easier with push up greens, however, to do it right, the area of disturbance is significant all around the fill pad especially in the front and back. 

[Tom_Doak]

I have done this a few times.  If it's a longer hole [par 4 or par 5] and there is any fairway leading into the green, I've always found it best to take all the elevation out at the back of the green.  I've seen a few greens where they raised the front, and the ramp up to the green becomes so sharp they can't even mow it anymore. 

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I agree.  We have room to work in the front approach on this particular hole but we also have to worry about moving water around the back of the green when we lower it.  I don't want water coming off the hillside and running across the green.  It all is doable but as stated it will be a large area of disturbance to get it right. 

[Joel_Stewart]

We softened the green on the 18th at Olympic after Payne Stewart had those putts in the US Open.  At those speeds, if you were above the hole and missed it was going to roll to the front of the green. It's well known the work didn't go well and now Gil Hanse to the rescue.  I'm not sure what he has planned for the hole.


Seems to me Tom Doak could comment on the 11th at Pasatiempo.  They softened that green, or at lease a portion and its been a success.

[Tom_Doak]

Seems to me Tom Doak could comment on the 11th at Pasatiempo.  They softened that green, or at lease a portion and its been a success.

Joel:


I hate softening greens, honestly.  You fix the most egregious one and the next year they make them even faster and there's another that's "over the line".  I feel like I'm just abetting poor decisions.


The 11th at Pasatiempo was one of five greens there that had, IIRC, six feet of fall from back to front.  It had already been tinkered with once, they had raised the front awkwardly, so I didn't feel so bad that we were blowing up an original, and just trying to build something that would work.  We cut a foot or more out of the back [it's been too long for me to remember exactly] and worked gradually back toward the front from there.  I also strengthened a little ridge at the front left, that helps hold putts down to the front section from going off the green [and 20 yards back down the fairway!].


It helps when you have built a lot of severe greens and you know the tricks to make one playable.  I think a lot of guys just panic and take every slope back to 2.5% or 3% until it doesn't even matter if you're above the hole anymore.  [Like the post-Payne 18th at Olympic.]

[Mark_Fine]

It’s like a last resort for me to recommend softening a green (it is expensive as well) but sometimes there is little choice.  Again, at this particular course we are not doing restoration but still I don’t like doing something like this if we don’t have to.  We also have to remember that when this green was built the green speed (if there was a Stimpmeter which there wasn’t until the mid 70’s) would have probably been about 5 or 6. Huge difference obviously from where we are today.  Sometimes greens have shrunk enough over the years that if you recover the lost square footage you can find enough holes locations to get by.  In this particular case that doesn’t help and to make it playable it needs softening.  As stated earlier, you just can’t raise the front to fix the problem.  I was on site today and fortunately we have the room to make the alterations.  It should go from a green most members despise to one they will finally enjoy playing. 

[jeffwarne]

Seems to me Tom Doak could comment on the 11th at Pasatiempo.  They softened that green, or at lease a portion and its been a success.

Joel:


I hate softening greens, honestly.  You fix the most egregious one and the next year they make them even faster and there's another that's "over the line".  I feel like I'm just abetting poor decisions.



It helps when you have built a lot of severe greens and you know the tricks to make one playable.  I think a lot of guys just panic and take every slope back to 2.5% or 3% until it doesn't even matter if you're above the hole anymore.  [Like the post-Payne 18th at Olympic.]

Green speeds are just like ball speed.
Every year, the "experts" say no more can be gained, and sure enough-those with financial incentive(for better or for worse) do.


I has to be conflicting for an architect when called upon to solve these "problems"-it certainly is for me when I have to promote them.

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
It is conflicting but does anyone have any better ideas?  The game has changed, especially the agronomics.  We had to do this on another course a few years ago and I remember before we did it sitting and watching groups come through and at least one person in every group four or five putt before just picking up.  That is no fun for anyone.  There was just no place to locate the hole. 

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,
It is conflicting but does anyone have any better ideas?  The game has changed, especially the agronomics.  We had to do this on another course a few years ago and I remember before we did it sitting and watching groups come through and at least one person in every group four or five putt before just picking up.  That is no fun for anyone.  The was just no place to locate the hole.

We all have conflicts Mark.
Taylormade sponsors my show for instance.Doesn't stop me from maintaining my 25 year stance on the ball and equipment
As an architect, you have to make a living and I don't fault architects for solving the problem they are hired to fix.


As far as having a better idea.
Yes the agronomics have changed and not for the better in many cases.(don't even get me started on super tight "chipping" areas)
Every time a great green is softened, something is lost-if nothing else, the difference in speed between uphill and downhill .
Hopefully, one day, before we're playing golf on flat pool tables, someone in power will have the courage to say enough is enough and their ability to create interesting and sustainable design is compromised, and the cost of maintaining it silly.
The most interesting greens I regularly putt on on run 6(not a typo)-and produce some of the fastest putts I get all season, but more important, their tilt creates incredible effects on approaches and pitches-something you'll never see on a green not sloped at 7%.
They also putt incredibly true and yes, they require solid contact, unlike a modern green amped at 13 where a heel, thin, solid or toe hit still roll plenty far.


Not suggesting you do that,or become an evangelist for it- just answering your question about a better idea.
I'm pretty sure incredibly interesting, fun, creative, strategic, testing golf can be acheived at greens rolling 9-10.
Cost goes down, more of the green is useable, great greens are not dumbed down.
I realize that's not news to you.


Don't mean to hijack the thread because I find yours and Tom's thoughts interesting.
Just answering the question.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff,
It is conflicting but does anyone have any better ideas?  The game has changed, especially the agronomics.  We had to do this on another course a few years ago and I remember before we did it sitting and watching groups come through and at least one person in every group four or five putt before just picking up.  That is no fun for anyone.  The was just no place to locate the hole.

That's because the greens are too *$#@ fast.  And that didn't happen overnight; they just kept dialing up the speed and didn't stop until it was past ridiculous for the greens involved.  [And though you did not name the course, it's hard for me to imagine they didn't have a lot of other steeply pitched greens that didn't need to be fast to be challenging, either.]


"The agronomics have changed" is a bad excuse.  The tactics of war changed when we developed nuclear weapons; fortunately we have understood that just because we HAVE them doesn't mean we need to USE them.  Nevertheless most green committees and most greenskeepers continue the Stimpmeter arms race, because it increases their prestige or gets them paid more.


Greenkeepers could use "better agronomics" to make their greens healthier, instead of making them faster.  It's always a choice, though it's one that few take.

[Tim Gavrich]

I have done this a few times.  If it's a longer hole [par 4 or par 5] and there is any fairway leading into the green, I've always found it best to take all the elevation out at the back of the green.  I've seen a few greens where they raised the front, and the ramp up to the green becomes so sharp they can't even mow it anymore. 

My high school home course, Simsbury Farms (Cornish, 1959 I think) completely botched a softening of their second green by doing exactly this. It broke my heart a couple years ago when I played it to see the green so neutered; it was one of a handful of terrifically steep ones, with two tiers that sloped from back-right to front-left. The new version is only slightly pitched and sits really artificially into the hill it's on, with lumpy undulations on both the tiers rather than a general pitch. It's now totally out-of-character with the rest of the putting surfaces on an otherwise solid golf course.


I should have gotten a photo from closer, but was too upset at what I saw when I got there to remember to document it. Even so, you can still tell how the neck in front has been pushed up abruptly to eliminate what was a subtle false front. And, where they lowered the back of the green, there's an untoward sharp slope down rather than the previous, gentler grade.

[Mark_Fine]

No argument here that most greens are kept too fast.  Unfortunately I don't see that changing anytime soon.  Maybe if some of the top architects started seeding their greens with Kentucky Blue Grass things would change    but I don't see that happening.  Or if a course like Oakmont (who can get their greens to 16  ) says enough is enough and takes them back to 7 or 8, the world will wake up and take notice.  That is not going to happen either.  The problem as we all know is that many varieties of grass used on greens these days need to be mowed ridiculously low.  Clubs would have to re-grass to really slow them up to where a green with back to front slope of 7-8% is playable. 


The fortunate thing on many older classic courses is that many of the greens were fairly large and could tolerate much higher green speeds.  We have all heard the phrase, "these older courses defend themselves at the green".  Well one of the reasons that is true is because all those contours that were built into those old greens (whether for interest or for surface drainage) are accentuated when they are rolling at 10 or 11 vs 5 or 6.  The problem is some of them are either too small or just too severe to cope with those much higher speeds.


The is no absolute right answer and every situation is different but my recommendations if you have to deal with a really severe green are as follows:


1) Talk to the club about green speeds and see if there is any willingness to slow things down.  This is almost always a tough sell but sometimes you can succeed in certain instances with arguments about better turf grass health, the ability to introduce additional hole locations that might not have been playable at the higher speeds, and in some cases the argument that you can speed up play. 


2) Make sure the green in question is enlarged as much as possible before doing any contour modifications (all the way out to edges of the fill pad).  Sometimes that expansion provides enough hole locations that you don't have to soften the green. Older greens often have shrunk so much that this should be done anyway as some of the best hole locations are often along the edges and they get lost over time.


3) Sometimes even after restoring the original green size is not enough, it is possible to make the green even larger without rebuilding or modifying contours in the one that is there.  This needs careful study and is on a case by case basis.


4) If you are dealing with a set of push up greens, make sure you keep the one you are softening as a push up green.  I have come across courses that have had severe push up greens rebuilt and the architect built them to USGA specs.  Don't do it!  This creates an extra maintenance challenge for the super and the new USGA green will also have different playability characteristics than the other push ups.  Keep all the greens root zones as consistent as possible. 


5) Strip and save and reuse the green sod.  This is almost always the best option to retain consistency with the other green surfaces. 


It should be noted that green contours, especially near green side bunkers can change dramatically over time from sand being tossed from the bunker onto the green surface.  In a course I renovated last year as one example, we removed as much as 2 1/2 feet of sand build up on the green edges near the bunkers.  Most don't realize how much original green contours change just from normal play as well as from topdressing/routine maintenance practices.  All this needs to be studied and factored into any green modification decisions.  And one last comment, I often see the front edges of green surfaces that have been raised up significantly from top dressing of greens.  Many times we lift the green sod in the front of greens, remove the sand build up, and restore something closer to the original approach contours.  This will not only look better but play better especially for run up shots. 

[Mike_Young]

If one has ever done much hiking in the mountains you will notice that most trails on steep slopes have switchbacks...going straight up the mountain or down would be severe....without getting into minute details and ODG oddities, I know I can soften a green using "switchback technology" even if subtle.  The back elevation remains the same as does the front....IMHO 16 Pasatiempo would be an extreme example...JMO

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not much to add, other than I recall the late Jay Morrish getting raked over the coals here for inserting a small tier in several greens at Ojai, not unlike what it looks like in the photo above. 


I've done that, and while the easy way to soften the cup areas of a green without raising the front or lowering the back significantly, it does introduce a never intended design element, which also looks a bit clunky when trying to fit into round shaped greens. And, most small, old greens need to add some space front or back anyway to create a spot big enough for a pin.  In those cases, you might just be better off expanding the area of the green anyway to tie in the slopes.

[Joel_Stewart]

Joel:

It helps when you have built a lot of severe greens and you know the tricks to make one playable.  I think a lot of guys just panic and take every slope back to 2.5% or 3% until it doesn't even matter if you're above the hole anymore.  [Like the post-Payne 18th at Olympic.]

Seems like that's the key what Mark is looking for?  Experience, a good shaper and don't bail out at 2.5 to 3%. 


At Olympic we had neither plus the architect was in way over his head. He had never worked in sand before.  Even though we never had a drainage problem, he insisted the greens be USGA spec so they hollowed out sand to build them at USGA spec.  I'm not sure they scoped the greens because so many small little bumps have been eliminated.  Lastly, they decided to sod the greens instead of seed which made them rock hard for over a year.   

[Mark_Fine]

Joel,
Sounds like they made a lot of mistakes at Olympic on #18.  One thing to keep in mind, at least with some of the severe greens I am talking about is that they are simply very severe back to front.  There is not a lot going on internally with the ones I am working on.  If there was, I would have more to work with and maybe not even have to soften them.  But when a green is simply pitched sharply back to front, unless you intend to essentially remodel it, your options are limited if you intend to keep it similar to what was originally there.  Even a green with relatively no internal contour that is 7-8% back to front pitch that used to roll at 5 or 6 that gets softened to 3-4% front to back at modern green speeds of say 9-11 can present all kinds of interesting putts because most will not be directly under the hole or directly above the hole.  Again it depends on the course but many times doing something like this will make the hole fit in much better with the other 17.  I recall seeing a rebuilt green at an old Flynn course that was simply crazy with internal contour compared to the other 17.  I knew immediately when I saw it that it was not original and had been rebuilt.  I was absolutely convinced that the architect was hoping they would love the new green and ask him to rebuild all the other 17    Sometimes simpler and closer to the original design concept is just fine. 

[Matt_Cohn]

Not to hijack the thread, but are there any big-name courses that keep their greens relatively slow (say 9 or less on a regular basis) to accommodate their slopes?

[Mark_Fine]

Matt,
It is a good question but even at 9, that won’t work with a green with 7-8% slope.  The ball will keep rolling. 

[Joel_Stewart]

Not to hijack the thread, but are there any big-name courses that keep their greens relatively slow (say 9 or less on a regular basis) to accommodate their slopes?

I was shocked at this but for everyday guest play in the summer, NGLA keeps the greens remarkably slow.  It really helps with the pace of play.  When there are member tournaments, they can dial them up.

[Sean_A]

If one has ever done much hiking in the mountains you will notice that most trails on steep slopes have switchbacks...going straight up the mountain or down would be severe....without getting into minute details and ODG oddities, I know I can soften a green using "switchback technology" even if subtle.  The back elevation remains the same as does the front....IMHO 16 Pasatiempo would be an extreme example...JMO

I feel like this is essentially what Ross did. I grew up a Ross course with some severe green grades. On one hole I always thought I could use the various contours and bowls to have a decent chance of keeping the severe downhill putt fairly close to the hole. On another hole this wasn't the case. The green was more a straight back to front slope toward water. I always wondered if the green had been altered or if Ross intended the water to be the key element of the hole.

Ciao

[Sean_A]

Not to hijack the thread, but are there any big-name courses that keep their greens relatively slow (say 9 or less on a regular basis) to accommodate their slopes?

These and slower are very common speeds for GB&I links.

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Sean,
Good point about GB&I links; they have to keep the greens slower or the courses would be unplayable because of the wind.  Balls would blow off the greens if they kept them at the speeds of many American courses.  Still speed is speed and slope is slope.  A ball won’t stop on a straight slope of 7-8% on a green rolling at 9.  I believe even at 4% it is dicey.  Some of these old greens over here are extremely sloped back to front and they are not terraced. 

[JC Urbina]

Mike,

The 16th green at Pasatiempo has changed dramatically over the years.  I have a photo of the opening day match between Jones, Marion Hollins and others standing on various parts of the 16th green.  Mind you that was over 90 years ago and that green has received endless agronomic attention ever since. 

The photo shows the Tiers or Valleys in that green were really valleys that would hold the ball up and keep it from rolling all the way down to the bottom. The valleys were actual pinning placements.  The back of the green had a small noticeable build up that proves that this green has swelled up like a sponge with water with all of those years of maintenance.  Leaf residue, sand splash, mowing clippings, sand applications and organic matter buildup, all contribute to that green not being the original surface that it once was. 

I have always said no green is original, its the evolution of a golf course.

Regarding your switchback idea

I have a photo of the 11th green before the modifications were done. Who over modified the green prior to our work   simply raised the front of the green by almost 3 feet. For years the membership played it that way with several balls being repelled by this wall of grass. 

Lowering the back of the green and adjusting the slopes in between back and front like you described with switchbacks,  allows for more  pinnable locations  and easier to manage the speed.    After the green was propagated with poa plugs I adjusted the front of the fairway approach to match this reworked green. 

A word of caution, seriously consider the  easy way to soften the green by raising the front of the putting surface only, it is so unnatural and just causes another problem for golfers with approach shots.  The 3rd green at Pasatiempo was one of the other greens that received that - raise the front of the green mentality,  its the easy fix in some peoples mind  but not the solution.

Justin the superintendent does a fabulous job on a day to day basis regarding the speeds of the greens at Pasatiempo.



Of course some golfers want them faster and others claim that they can be too fast.  Seasonal changes are common place.  Wet winter weather and dry summer heat make the greens play softer and firmer respectfully.  So as the weather changes so do the putting surfaces.

[/size]In my opinion that is the problem with green speeds, golf courses are not allowed to have seasons anymore, golfers demand the green speeds be the same everyday no matter the season, winter, spring, summer or fall, depending on location, those green speeds better be the same.  -  sigh. -

[Tom_Doak]

In my opinion that is the problem with green speeds, golf courses are not allowed to have seasons anymore, golfers demand the green speeds be the same everyday no matter the season, winter, spring, summer or fall, depending on location, those green speeds better be the same.  -  sigh. -

Agreed, that's exactly the problem.

During the tournament at Memorial Park I had dinner with a couple of young pros, and I said that the reason the course worked well was because it was public . . . they don't have the greens very fast for most of the year, so all they have to do is dial up the green speeds and grow out the rough a bit, and the challenge goes up considerably.

But if it were a private course -- or even a "high-end" public course -- they would want the greens fast every day, and then it would be too hard for players.  And if we ratcheted that back to get people around, then it wouldn't be as challenging for the pros.

Playing greens every day at 10 on the Stimpmeter is the problem.  And that's exactly what the customer demands.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not to hijack the thread, but are there any big-name courses that keep their greens relatively slow (say 9 or less on a regular basis) to accommodate their slopes?

When I played Prairie Dunes in September, they said the greens typically rolled no more than 9 for member play.


This leads me to ask, are there a lot of examples of clubs insisting on 12-13 for every day play, on greens that don't support that speed, or do most adapt somewhat, say between 10-12 so golfers can actually enjoy the round?  Or, is this like talking about what PGA Tour pros might shoot at your club, even though it doesn't really happen.  In other words, what clubs don't try to keep their greens playable?


I did a master plan at a club with 13 speed greens for every day play, and they had 4 greens (or parts thereof) they called questionable.  On measuring, those exceed 4% in the maximum downhill direction.  I actually used the PGA Tour method of measuring two ways, 90 deg. to the other, and making sure the sum was 5.5 or less (which translates to a max of 3.89% straight downhill.  Every questionable pin position came in at 5.6 or more, sometimes way more.  These were 1965 era greens, and I would say the average pin area slopes were 3-4%, sometimes 5-6%, about typical for those times.


Short version, yes, I agree the 2-3% max slope in cup areas is a bit too moderate, and also agree a few switchbacks or counter slopes help in reducing the "de-greening" of putts to some extent.  And, as mentioned, the real solution really lies in tearing out a bit more area either behind or in front of the green to make sure there aren't many undesirable slopes, i.e. the sharp upslope TD mentions.