Evolving green contours

[Mark_Fine]

Jim Urbina stated on the Green Contour Softening thread that:

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

I wonder if most of us really understand what this statement means? 

Some greens are purposely changed like the 5th green at Pine Valley, the contours are not original. They were changed by Tom Fazio.
Other changes are simply from maintenance such as from top dressing although there is a lot of debate about whether top dressing truly changes contours.  But one thing that is part of a green’s evolution and is not debatable is that of sand tossed on the putting surface from greenside bunkers - This can and does dramatically cause change.   It also changes the aesthetics of the bunker, the visibility of portions of the green surface that the architect intended to be seen, and obviously hole locations near those edges that sometimes completely disappear because of the new severity of the evolved slopes.  This issue is something we constantly face when doing renovation and restoration projects.  On my two most recent projects, we removed as much as 2 1/2 feet of sand build up on the green that came from the sand being tossed out of the bunkers.  I am curious how others here address this issue especially when they are trying to restore/recapture original green contours?

Going back to what Jim said, all greens evolve from what was originally designed and this is a good example how they change just through normal play.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Sometimes greens change because they just don't work. I was a member at Four Streams for fifteen years. I joined the year it opened. Both 14 and 16 had small greens with a lot of slope. Members complained and the super quietly mentioned that there were only a few pin placements. Smyers was on retainer and came back every year. About three years after it opened Smyers changed both greens. They worked much better. The holes were more interesting and playable.


I'd like to see the third green at Ballyhack changed. The green is huge but because of the slope has only a few pin placements.

[Peter Pallotta]

Call me not smart, but what I've never understood is why, if all greens evolve, they don't all evolve in the same way.

For years now the conventional wisdom/consensus opinion -- correcting the previous and apparently incorrect consensus opinion -- has been that the famous upside-down-bowl greens at Pinehurst #2 aren't what Ross originally built or wanted, but instead are the evolving product of years of top-dressing and the result of decades of sand being tossed onto the greens from bunker shots.
But if that's the case, why don't we have literally thousands of upside-down-bowl greens all across the country, by every architect who ever built a course decades ago?
Just about every green is top dressed, and every green has sand splashed onto them from bunker play.
Why haven't they too 'evolved' into looking like the greens that Ross built (but apparently didn't, actually) at Pinehurst No 2?

[Mark_Fine]

Tommy,
Yes sometimes greens need to be changed and some are for the reasons you mentioned and for many others.  That is one of the challenges of very small greens; you usually have very limited hole locations if the greens have any decent amount of contour.  It's physics.
Peter,
I wanted to start a thread that I thought could be educational and thought provoking. Unless you have actually done soil probes and dug up the green side shoulder of an old bunker for example, you might not realize this evolution actually happens.  And the amount of change in height and green contour varies from bunker to bunker depending on the amount of action it sees.  As far as top dressing, there remains some debate about how much this changes the contours of the green.  In theory, if top dressing is evenly spread, the whole green would just raise up accordingly.  This is mostly what happened over time at Pinehurst #2.  Those greens had common bermuda grass on them (after 1935) and they needed a lot of top dressing to keep them healthy.  #2 got far more attention and far more top dressing than the other golf courses.  One way to think of #2's greens is think of a pancake that is almost at grade that gets built up evenly after years of top dressing to the point where it ends up being perched well above grade.  What is believed to have happened is that later on in the mid-90's Rees Jones came in and converted the greens to bent grass.  When this was done they tried to tie the outer edges of the elevated greens more closely into the surrounding contours (think of someone trimming off the edges of the pancake to match the dish it is sitting on/the surrounding grade).  The end result was the now famous crowned/turtle-backed greens which are far more severe then you will find on most any other Ross design.  Early photos confirm all of this showing much more grade level greens vs those now which are well above grade.
But the main point of this thread is that greens in general evolve (sometimes by the hand of man and sometimes naturally).  I remember talking with the super years ago working on a Tillinghast design in NJ - Suneagles.  I believe it was the 10th hole, I noticed that it had some strange internal contours (it was a green that had been rebuilt by Fazio).  I asked the super about it and he said he always had trouble with that green because of the way "it settled over time”.  Just another way some greens can evolve  

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark -
thanks; my question about No. 2 was genuine, so I appreciate the extra facts and details you provided.
More generally, I wouldn't deny for a second that greens evolve; but this is yet another case where the courses that one tends to play shape one's thinking, i.e.
Many of the courses I've played are about 40-50 years old, and they were built modestly and with plain-jane flat greens that titled from back to front. Well, 50 years of 'evolution' on those types of greens and they're all *still* boring!

[Paul Rudovsky]

While dealing with green size and shape (as opposed to contours) I have heard two other theories and posted about them here before:


1.  While cutting greens the strong tendency of maintenance staff is to cut "inside" the green cut line...perhaps a mere 0.1" but those 0.1" can build up pretty significantly over time.  The net result is s shrinking in green size and elimination of interesting pin positions along the side and in the corners.


2.  During World War II petrol was rationed both here and in GB&I (actually probably everywhere).  And in those days just about no one violated these regulations/laws.  Apparently greenskeepers everywhere quickly leaned they could save petrol by cutting the greens in a circular or oval pattern (rather that going back and forth in mostly straight lines) as this eliminated the time and petrol used when "turning around".  This would eliminate most corners on "squared off" greens and over time make them more circular or oval in shape.


Soil samples and old arial photos are generally used to determine the original green shapes and dimensions during a restoration.

[Mark_Fine]

Peter,
Most of us still play greens like that, some more often than others.  Sometimes the changes (sand tossed on to the green from a bunker) can actually add interest vs take it away but the point is all green are changing and evolving.


Paul,
The points you make are very accurate.  Changing green shape/shrinkage is very common and we deal with it all the time.  It is one of the most impactful improvements that many courses can make to restore lost architectural intent.  One area that is also a pet peeve of mine that happens from years of top dressing is the front edges of greens over time get raised up to the point where there is almost a small ledge and this inhibits the ground game.  What we do is strip the sod, remove the sand build up, and lay back down the sod.  This correction can have a major impact on playability as well as aesthetic especially on older courses where it was important to have an integrated approach with the green surface. 

[Mike_Young]

While dealing with green size and shape (as opposed to contours) I have heard two other theories and posted about them here before:


1.  While cutting greens the strong tendency of maintenance staff is to cut "inside" the green cut line...perhaps a mere 0.1" but those 0.1" can build up pretty significantly over time.  The net result is s shrinking in green size and elimination of interesting pin positions along the side and in the corners.


2.  During World War II petrol was rationed both here and in GB&I (actually probably everywhere).  And in those days just about no one violated these regulations/laws.  Apparently greenskeepers everywhere quickly leaned they could save petrol by cutting the greens in a circular or oval pattern (rather that going back and forth in mostly straight lines) as this eliminated the time and petrol used when "turning around".  This would eliminate most corners on "squared off" greens and over time make them more circular or oval in shape.


Soil samples and old arial photos are generally used to determine the original green shapes and dimensions during a restoration.

Triplex mowers created oval greens...

[SL_Solow]

Mike,  so did RB Harris

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
You are exactly correct about triplex mowers. Whether greens are to be hand mowed vs triplex mowed can have significant implications in restoration/renovation work (far more than most golfers realize).  Much of the separation between the green surface and green side bunkers/hazards is a result of what kind of equipment is used to mow the greens.  An architect has much more flexibility with design if greens are to be hand mowed.  Why design something that won't or can't be maintained as intended. 


I do find it fascinating that many people don't realize how greens evolve.  Has anyone ever noticed green side sprinkler heads that are two or three inches below the surface?  Sprinkler heads don't sink    Furthermore, not all superintendents top dress evening (or at all) the green collars/surrounds and the approaches.  Some have fairly precise spreading equipment that just covers the green surface.  Soil probes again can show this.  I talked earlier about how greens can build up on the front edges to the point where the transition to the approach is abrupt.  Start looking for these kind of things as you see different courses.  It can be eye opening. 

[Forrest Richardson]

1 - Maintenance protocols (topdressing, shrinking, creep, etc)...absolute #1!

2 - Compaction / settling

3 - Changes demanded:
By Golfers
By Green Committee
By Dictator
By Tournament Play
By Reality (speed vs hole locations; need for larger to handle wear: i.e. softening and modification due to other influences)

4 - Accident (seismic, damage, shade)

5 - Bunker sand intrusion

6 - Dunes sand intrusion

7 - Relocation

[JC Urbina]

Peter,
The reason that all of the greens do not evolve in the same way is varied.  Here are some examples
1- Wind
2- Landscape
3- Bunker Play
4- Sun exposure
5- Number of bunkers around the green
6- Green Micro Climate
7- Access to green surface - maintenance
8- Ingress and egress to green
9- Growing season.
10- Type of cultivar on green
11- Age of green
12- Growing medium under green
13- Maintenance standards
14- Green Speed expectations

ETC.

[Mark_Fine]

Forrest and Jim,
Great examples of how and why and how greens are constantly evolving (obviously some much more than others).  These are some of the reasons why I find it hard to just do "a bunker renovation or restoration" without touching at least the edges of the greens to get everything to tie together.  I have seen many projects where it looks like someone did the bunkers and someone separately did the greens and they just don't connect.  Anyone else know or have seen what I am talking about?