Why so few crowned greens on modern courses?

[Michael Dugger]

Lou,
Care to present some evidence that consumers will not want to play a course with a crowned green?
I don’t think anyone wants to play a course with 18 very difficult greens, but I’d like some evidence from you and others that show how a convex shaped green, done well, will be rejected by golfers.


Remember all greens have to surface drain. 


And that thread about wet approaches? Read Jeff’s post about how greens must be shaped back to front and then add 2 + 2. 


Crowned greens done well work just fine. The high point doesn’t have to be snack dab in the middle.  I’m not talking upside down cereal bowls here.

Don,


I work with several biz consultants and management companies over the years.  Bluntly, no one ever complains about a course being too easy (except in very rare cases of being far too easy).  One consultant says the most popular courses are those with an average slope rating of 116. Another says the barometer for a course you could play every day is a course you could normally shoot your average score most days, within a few strokes.  Tying that to the slope rating, I would say the effective average slope rating in the US is 120, and in urban areas with a lot of newer courses (like Houston and DFW) the average slope is probably between 120 and 130, so the average player there would probably prefer courses about that tough.


I have seen it across the dozens of courses I have designed.  The hardest ones slowly lose popularity, so again, I have to go on my experience.  (and no one has ever called me to add bunkers or contours, LOL)


Granted, there may be a difference between a destination resort course and a local course you could play everyday.  I get that it needs to be pretty and pretty interesting, it just doesn't need to be impossible to play with an every day shot.  There is no design interest in a green or fw you can't hit with a reasonable good shot.


And, remember, to the C player, a good shot is defined as one that gets airborne, within a few degrees of being on the right line, and at least most of the way to the green.  We sometimes forget just how bad the average golfer who populates our courses is, and designing for the top 1%, without any particular reason certainly isn't form follows function.  Tying this to another thread where Tom Doak called me pedantic, I still have to ask if so called "great design" needs to be attained by ignoring long established principles. 


I mean, a reverse slope green is an interesting challenge most of us here would relish, but like Lou says, enthusiasm runs far less everywhere that is NOT golfclubatlas.com.  And, I have designed them, making sure there is a way to land the ball short to account for the run.  But half a green sloping away?  Where you have to land a shot in half of a 30 yard deep area to have a chance to hold?  At any distance over 100 yards, most golfers don't statistically have that shot.  Maybe, maybe, maybe if you somehow keep the back of the green a reasonable recovery shot, but in reality, an unittable target with an easy recovery isn't all that strong a design concept.  An easily hittable green with a harder recovery is more typical.


As to the back to front, yes, a green draining 100% to the front can make the approach wet.  As you probably also know and do, most of us drain our greens in two directions, maybe 3, taking the back half out to the low side somewhere, even as the overall green still tilts up.  Where I can, I look to drain 60% of the green anywhere but off the front.  If the cart path is on the low side, I might direct more drainage to the front to keep the walk up areas between the path and green drier (in clay soils).  So yes, draining the green is a consideration.


That said, I wonder why so many amateur architects here think its a great idea to design a target that physics almost certainly say won't accept a normal shot?


Michael Dugger,


Again, there is room in golf for Pine Valley type courses.  If a modern day Crump wanted to build one, no one should stop them.  It's just that most things are on a bell curve, and maybe 10% should be both very hard and very easy, and the mid 80% should be a reasonable challenge.


As per my answer above, yes, you need to please the client, who is most likely trying to appeal to the broadest segment of golfers available, and "good practice" suggests attainable targets for the masses.  Obviously, there needs to be some young architects out there who think outside the box and gingerly introduce some long lost design elements into new designs.  Just remember, most new ideas actually fail, probably at about the same rates as new businesses.

I realize now days that my beef with a lot of this is I don't think I like Average Joe golfer. 


But I get that they have $$$ to spend. 

[Ira Fishman]

My wife would play PH2 every day if she could. She carries a 25 handicap. I would be right there with her at my generous 15. But that is not feasible. Instead, we play Hope Valley whenever our schedules permit a trip there. The greens are not all crowned, but plenty of false fronts and run offs to all sides and back. It is a blast. The tee sheet is full, and I am aware of only one other Gca.com participant who is a member.


Ira

[David_Elvins]

I feel like USGA construction methods have played a big part in disencetivising the building of crowned greens or any sort of crowned features in greens.

[Thomas Dai]

Reckon I'd like to play a course that Don M has been involved in building/maintaining. Reckon I might like to play it a lot more than just once too.
atb

[Michael Felton]

Don,


I think you know the reason, LOL. 


Basically, average golfers need all the help they can get and it became common, and almost standard, to have greens largely tilt back to front at least at 1.5% or more.  We always knew they needed that, and there are more and more statistics that prove what we always knew.


I have field measured greens where members/players complain the "greens won't hold."  Basically, it was any green that didn't slope back to front at least 1.33% in my tests. 


Beyond that, my mentors (and most others of the 1970's generation) also made at least the front half of the green slightly concave to further help shots hold the green.  If there is anything that teed off average golfers more than a nice shot rollling off the back, it's one that hits the green and bounds off the side.


If a green is crowned, average golfers can't hold the back half of the green, and they usually want to.  Not only that, but course managers really want them to, to speed play.


I have even seen this in my greens that have a back left (or right) lobe to create a Sunday Pin location.  If that is 50 feet deep, but the sideways drainage swale is centered in that 50 feet, rather than in the front third, golfers complain they can't hold that part of the green when they aim there, and I have remodeled a few to move the swale closer to the front of that area, and also beef up the backstop slope to 2.25-3% to help stop those shots and also tends to make the green more visible.


Some here may say (as David just did) that its coddling golfers with fairness, but in truth, golf is hard, and they need all the help they can get.  I would say it may be nice perhaps once per course (except those muni golf factories) but in reality, is a crowned green such a great design concept that it should be used?

Hi Jeff


This is fascinating stuff. My one thought on it is about a hole that I really enjoy playing. It doesn’t have a crowned green per the definition, but it does slope from front to back. The bank between the front bunkers and the green is the highest point of the hole, so your approach is always uphill to it. The vast majority of approach shots to it are played from rough or a slight downslope. There are in my experience three ways to hold the green with your approach. 1. Hit the bank between bunkers and green in the right spot - it’s maybe a yard deep. 2. Hit your drive into the perfect spot at the end of the first bit of fairway so you’re on the upslope. 3. Lay up and hit a wedge on - even then it’s hard.


The hole is the 4th at Bethpage Black. I’ve never heard anyone complain that the green is too firm. Plenty who say it’s tough, but they’re under no illusions that it’s the slope that does it. Maybe it’s that it’s one hole and most of the other holes around it have that slight back to front slope you mentioned. Thinking about it every other hole on the course is higher at the back than the front.


Peter - regarding your question I think it’s one of two things. Expectation - if you’re paying $450 to play a round, chances are you know what you’re getting yourself into. The other is the people paying $450 are a very different group from those paying $80.

[jeffwarne]

I feel like USGA construction methods have played a big part in disencetivising the building of crowned greens or any sort of crowned features in greens.

.

[Brett Meyer]

I'm a fan of crowned greens but they have to be subtle. They seem easy to overdo.


The biggest problem that I've seen with a lot of the crowned greens built in the last few decades (they seemed to proliferate after the 1999 Pinehurst US Open) is not so much with the green surfaces, but with the green surroundings. I've seen numerous examples--including by architects and on courses that I really like--of gently crowned greens with long, steep short grass run-offs where you can hit a pretty good approach shot and make an X because you have another steep run-off on the other side of the green. No one likes that.


It's interesting to compare these contemporary Pinehurst no.2-style greens to no.2's greens themselves. While almost all of the greens on no.2 are crowned and have convex edges, most of these edges are subtle and the ball will only run a few feet away from the green. Yes, many of the greens have severe areas (left on five, over on eight), but these are the exception rather than the rule and it's easy to play away from these. I've played there a few times with my dad--who's probably about a 30 handicap--and he's always been able to get around the greens just fine and liked the course. Not so for him or the other high handicappers that I play with on some of the modern takes on this type of green complex.


So I like crowned greens and I suspect that higher handicap golfers wouldn't have a problem with them either, provided that the slope at the edge of the green carries their ball 5-10 ft. away from the green rather than 50 ft. away down a 10 ft. hill.

[jeffwarne]

The reality is, crowned greens, along with significant strategic slope and tilt, have been lost(or become unpopular) due to ever increasing turf speeds, whether it be the greens themselves, or the hand mown, rolled "chipping" areas, now faster than the original greenspeeds of the greens they were supposed to surround.


More "Advancements" that take the game backwards.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I feel like USGA construction methods have played a big part in disencetivising the building of crowned greens or any sort of crowned features in greens.

I don't think so, really.  I have built crowns in greens (the back left third of the original number 1 at Stallion Mountain in Vegas) There is a tendency for the mix layer to soften up what you shape in the subgrade, but in the case of crowned greens, that softening probably helps the final product.


I'll never forget what my client (Jim Colbert) said when he saw it, "Jeff, you must be the best damn golfer in the whole, wide world.  One of my associates tried it again in Ruiodoso, NM, also for Colbert, and I let it pass until a site visit, where he could get the same reaction (which he did). 


I also recall discussions with my mentors, who were trained by Robert Bruce Harris, who also tended towards crowns and back side roll offs on his huge greens, which they replicated early in their career.  At some point, given they were "budget" architects, one of their client's superintendent asked why they would go out and spend money to build an unusable portion of green?  That got them in the habit of no back roll offs, but it makes sense.


Also, philosophically, if I create a Sunday pin in a back green corner, but make it almost impossible to hold, who would actually go for it?  Providing some upslope (at least from the strategically preferred angle) makes the shot possible, with enough accuracy, and thus encourages aggressive play, which is more fun than aiming at the middle of the green all day.  So again, I have very little use for crowned greens, although, I have inadvertently built a few, by having too much slope in the front half draining out the front, and swaling the back half sideways, basically leaving the back half of the green level, and not holdable. 


If you Google the USGA heat map of Winged Foot 18, which they did several years ago prior to (I think) the Hanse renovation, you will see that Tillie knew this was true, as well.  Although all the contours are about twice what we would use today, the front swale is softer coming out the front, and the back swale is as close to the green center as possible, draining right to the grass hollow.  But the back third of the green (or right side of that swale) slopes up at about 4-5% so the green keeps going uphill.  The left side (or front) of that sideways swale is a much gentler slope where it faces away from the golfers, minimizing the area where a ball might hit a reverse slope and run out.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff Brauer,


I don’t know if I like or agree with what you have written in this thread, but I will give you an A+ for clearly stating your views on the thread subject and for doing so with some detail.


As for only one crowned green per 18, I’d probably prefer more like 3-4.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff Brauer,
I don’t know if I like or agree with what you have written in this thread, but I will give you an A+ for clearly stating your views on the thread subject and for doing so with some detail....

+1
Jeff has been remarkably and consistently generous and respectful over many many years here in sharing his expertise, perspectives and experience with the rest of us, even sometimes in the face of inexplicable hostility.

On these greens, like with many design features/styles my views come down to that old Darwin line -- a rabbit I may be, but I don't want to be treated like a rabbit, and I want opportunities to show that sometimes I'm actually a tiger!!

[jeffwarne]

Jeff Brauer,

  I will give you an A+ for clearly stating your views on the thread subject and for doing so with some detail.

I would agree 100%.
Thank you Jeff for sharing your experiences

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff Brauer,


I don’t know if I like or agree with what you have written in this thread, but I will give you an A+ for clearly stating your views on the thread subject and for doing so with some detail.


As for only one crowned green per 18, I’d probably prefer more like 3-4.

Tim,


When I said maybe one, I was thinking of Don's original description:


My definition of a crowned green is:[/size]1) The highest point of the green is internal, not too close to the edge as to eliminate a hole location2) the entire green surface is higher than the immediate surrounds3) the green surface drains on all sides, some faster than others but water is never required to drain across the length/width of the green at any point.4) Sometimes the best “miss” is just off the green, and the center of the green can be very challenging with some hole locations.


I was also imagining something smallish, like under 6,000 SF.  I have seen pictures of some very large crowned greens, with portions running off various directions.  With enough size, a lot of contouring options present themselves, including interior crowns.  That is why a Redan works - it is reverse sloped, but you give the golfer a full 120+ feet to run it out, and they just have to recognize that hitting the front edge of the green, or slightly in front if a fw cut exists.


A 90 foot diameter circular green might even work, providing the front half is sloped mildly to the front, so a ball might roll out on impact, and thus have a chance to stay on the green.  But, asking the average golfer (or even low handicap) to have distance control within 45 foot of depth(the front half of the green) is pretty tough.  If steeply sloped to the front, transitioning to even a mildly steeped slope off the back, might limit the distance options that work to merely a few yards, as the up slope might kick the ball back. 


Who has that shot?  Honestly, some low handicappers and pros do.  I built one reverse slope green based on White Bear no. 12, and good players just hit it with even more spin to hold the green, while average ones never could hold it (and many never even considered under clubbing, which is another story, LOL).  So again, is a design feature that widens the talent gap/results between the top and average players even more than normal a great design feature?  Philosophically, most people would say no.


But, with my clientele (and I bet 90% of clients) there has to be some good justification for building too many greens too much above the required size for pinnable area.  [/color]

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff Brauer,
I don’t know if I like or agree with what you have written in this thread, but I will give you an A+ for clearly stating your views on the thread subject and for doing so with some detail....

+1
Jeff has been remarkably and consistently generous and respectful over many many years here in sharing his expertise, perspectives and experience with the rest of us, even sometimes in the face of inexplicable hostility.

On these greens, like with many design features/styles my views come down to that old Darwin line -- a rabbit I may be, but I don't want to be treated like a rabbit, and I want opportunities to show that sometimes I'm actually a tiger!!

Peter,


Totally agree that Jeff has consistently been generous and respectful in sharing his thoughts about golf architecture, especially considering that for most of us here golf architecture is just an art form that we love and not an area of expertise.


My A+ for Jeff was really not for his generosity, rather it was for his detailed response to Don Mahaffey’s initial post. One doesn’t have to fully agree with Jeff’s perspective on this topic to recognize and respect how well he explained it.

[MCirba]

Reckon I'd like to play a course that Don M has been involved in building/maintaining. Reckon I might like to play it a lot more than just once too.
atb

"What the hell you doin' with that inverted green, Karl?"


"I reckon I aim to kill you with it.  Mmmm."

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff Brauer,


I don’t know if I like or agree with what you have written in this thread, but I will give you an A+ for clearly stating your views on the thread subject and for doing so with some detail.


As for only one crowned green per 18, I’d probably prefer more like 3-4.

Tim,


When I said maybe one, I was thinking of Don's original description:


My definition of a crowned green is:1) The highest point of the green is internal, not too close to the edge as to eliminate a hole location2) the entire green surface is higher than the immediate surrounds3) the green surface drains on all sides, some faster than others but water is never required to drain across the length/width of the green at any point.4) Sometimes the best “miss” is just off the green, and the center of the green can be very challenging with some hole locations.


I was also imagining something smallish, like under 6,000 SF.  I have seen pictures of some very large crowned greens, with portions running off various directions.  With enough size, a lot of contouring options present themselves, including interior crowns.  That is why a Redan works - it is reverse sloped, but you give the golfer a full 120+ feet to run it out, and they just have to recognize that hitting the front edge of the green, or slightly in front if a fw cut exists.


A 90 foot diameter circular green might even work, providing the front half is sloped mildly to the front, so a ball might roll out on impact, and thus have a chance to stay on the green.  But, asking the average golfer (or even low handicap) to have distance control within 45 foot of depth(the front half of the green) is pretty tough.  If steeply sloped to the front, transitioning to even a mildly steeped slope off the back, might limit the distance options that work to merely a few yards, as the up slope might kick the ball back. 


Who has that shot?  Honestly, some low handicappers and pros do.  I built one reverse slope green based on White Bear no. 12, and good players just hit it with even more spin to hold the green, while average ones never could hold it (and many never even considered under clubbing, which is another story, LOL).  So again, is a design feature that widens the talent gap/results between the top and average players even more than normal a great design feature?  Philosophically, most people would say no.


But, with my clientele (and I bet 90% of clients) there has to be some good justification for building too many greens too much above the required size for pinnable area. 

Jeff,


At the risk of hijacking Don’s thread, what really caught my attention was your suggestion that a design feature that widens the talent gap/results between the top and average players is not a great design feature.


Seems to me it depends on how penal the design feature might be for the average player. Let me cite two holes by Alister MacKenzie:


Augusta #15
Crystal Downs #16


Regarding #15 at Augusta, a few years back we had a good thread/discussion on “How does a 15 handicap play Augusta #15”. My contention and reason for starting the thread was that hitting from a downhill lie over water is simply too hard for the average player who also lacked the skill to reach the green in two shots.


Of course the discussion hardly produced any consensus on whether a third shot was simply two hard for the average player, but hopefully you get my point.


The approach to Crystal Downs 16th hole presents a different challenge, especially if the pin is front right: how to hit a little pitch to a pretty severe slope to set up a realistic birdie putt. Not easy, but in my opinion fun rather than scary penal.


So getting back to the crown green situation, I am cool with a design that has a shot an average player can’t always pull off and maybe is only about to do so, say, one out of three times. The design objective, it seems to me is to combine fun with a sense of challenge and accomplishment for the average player.


I like a couple of these situations on each nine.

[Steve Lang]

   Don M,


Which greens at Wolf Point do you consider crowned and which are close to or have your designated features?  I seem to remember a handful of subjects on both front and back 9's on only play around Halloween party 2017. 


On #1, I remember topping my 2W, hitting to green but ending on edge and scrambiing for par... favorable first impression for an everyday course!

[Eric Smith]

[Tom_Doak]

I guess my definition of a crowned green is a little different than Jeff’s:  I would certainly include Perry Maxwell’s greens that were back to front but drain off both side.


Coincidentally, I will start rebuilding Maxwell’s first set of greens at Dornick Hills in a couple of weeks, thirty years after Jeff changed the back nine greens at the members’ request.


They may not be the right solution for a lot of courses, but deciding never to build a feature on that basis is backwards to me:  I am looking for the right places to build features other guys are afraid to build.  I say that fully understanding that Jeff’s clients are very different from mine (or from Al Stanger at Wolf Point), and that we all ought to deliver what we think is in our client’s best interests.  I just don’t believe that Jeff’s rationalizations apply across the board.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim W,


I once wrote an article (if I reread it today, I would probably cringe) comparing golf design to socialism.  While cringe worthy, I do believe it's true that a lot of gca is devoted to minimizing the differences between players.  Some of that is trying to give different types of players (length, accuracy, finesse, with length usually being its own reward) different kind of holes where they can shine and/or have an advantage.


But, it also applies to scratch players vs. bogey players, trying to make the course accommodate all players somehow.  Tees are shorter, fw wider at landing zones that average players typically hit, green fronts open because average players need roll ons, etc.  As often noted here, even bunker depth, size, and placement get consideration as to where they will challenge better players but not impede average ones.


I note both your examples are par 5 holes, i.e., third shots of about 100 yards, which I note is about the only place I would try those crowned greens.


As to the pic of Wolf Point Eric Smith posted, it looks fantastic, but I don't see it, or to Tom D's comments about Maxwell greens, that they are true crowned greens as I imagine.  Just goes to show there is more imagination out there in gca world than at least I can comprehend at one point.


As to your earlier points, thanks for kind words.  And yes, since joining here in 1999, I know you guys prefer talking about the top 100 courses, and my posts are usually designed to illustrate the other 13,900 courses in America, or at least 12,000 of them or so, and what gca's deal with when designing courses for everyday play. 


As I said on another thread, the conservative philosophy regarding how hard greens are to hit probably applies to 90%+ of courses in the US, but I agree with TD, no design philosophy should fit "across the board."  As TD says, his clients and mine are completely different in what they ask for and what they want.


Philosophically, it does raise an interesting question in my mind.  Specifically I wonder if the newest generation is making the same mistake previous ones (especially mine generation) made, i.e. making courses too hard in order to make a name for themselves?  Yes, formerly it was done with "fair greens" and probably far too many hazards.  With the new emphasis on long discarded theories on contouring greens, will the courses be too hard by virtue of difficulty to hit, hold and putt greens? 


It may be less frustrating to golfers than ponds, bunkers, and lost balls, so it has that going for it, but I still wonder if we really need any more "great" courses in the difficulty department?


Of course, there is no cookbook or magic formula.  "Horses for courses" may not have been coined for golf or golf course architets, but it certainly applies.

[Carl Rogers]

If P#2 didn't have the raised crownded greens, would it be considered a "great" or "championship" course?  Could the course resist low scores by the top 100 in the world? (See other thread that discussed "greatness" and scoring resistance)

[Sean_A]

If P#2 didn't have the raised crownded greens, would it be considered a "great" or "championship" course?  Could the course resist low scores by the top 100 in the world? (See other thread that discussed "greatness" and scoring resistance)

#2 was considered great and used for a major championship prior to the crown greens. That said, I have no doubt that it would be a better course with greens more like the originals. The crown theme is overused.

Jeff

I agree that a lot of architecture is about reducing the gap between very good and poor players. That is a result of the playability mantra...and its not a bad mantra. But that doesn't mean the archie can't throw in a few wrenches to keep golfers honest about their abilities.

Ciao

[Jeff Schley]

The crown theme is overused.

Ciao

Not to mention more difficult for us hacks.

[Sean_A]

The crown theme is overused.

Ciao

Not to mention more difficult for us hacks.

Well, it's like any feature. I would rather have variety even if it means I will dislike a hole or two.

Ciao

[Scott Weersing]

I think crowned greens work on short holes because you have to be precise with a short iron. One my favorite crowned greens, and a favorite on this site, is the 12th green at Rustic Canyon. The green may not be a classic crowned green but the entire left side is a crown. You can play short and then two putt up to the crown. Another favorite crowned green is Double Plateau at Old Mac, no. 1.


Too many push up greens or crowned greens on a course can lead to indifference, boredom or such.


The question I have, how many push up greens or crowned greens can you have and still call it a links course? For example, is the Ocean Course a links course or not?