Royal County Down

[Adam Lawrence]

I was watching a Fried Egg video about RCD, in which Andy Johnson said something along the lines that, most of the time, if you have great greens, you have a great course, but RCD is an example of a course with fairly low-key greens that is great because of the terrain and how it is used.

This made me ask myself a question. Would RCD be a better course with more complex (I won't say 'better' because I'm trying to avoid leaping to conclusions) greens, or would it, given the rest of the course, just be too much to cope with?

Thoughts?

[Ally Mcintosh]

In general, RCD is overrated.


I’m not saying it’s not great (it is) but to perennially be in the top-3 in the world places it above its station as a golf course. Its beauty and aesthetic plays a large part in its position.


Would it be better with more interest in the greens? I am not overly sure. It has been a while since I’ve been there and I can’t recall enough of the detail in the surrounds to say. I will be there again in a couple of months time. What I will say is that I do believe greens can be low-key and still add to greatness as long as the green sites themselves are varied and supremely placed.

[Ryan Book]

Can only speak within my own personal context but I think a green redesign program at Bethpage Black would make it considerably more fun even if it adds strokes to my already suffering scorecard.

Then again, based what I understand of RCD, getting to the green is the fun part...mostly untrue at Black.

[Niall C]

Never played Royal County Down but I know a few superlative links courses that also have fairly flat greens. I'd put Carnoustie in that bracket. Given the landscape there I'm not sure greens that had a lot more movement would necessarily work as well.


Niall

[PCCraig]

I adore RCD.


I think the greens, if renovated to a bunch of potato chips, would be overload on that site. There is so much going on with the dunes and wind that it would be a bit too much. They aren't all boring ovals though...the 7th green is a mean little guy that would be right at home at Pinehurst #2. Plus, many of the greens sit in wonderful surroundings - the base of a dune, surrounded by gorse like on the 13th, etc.

[Steve Abt]

Can only speak within my own personal context but I think a green redesign program at Bethpage Black would make it considerably more fun even if it adds strokes to my already suffering scorecard.

Then again, based what I understand of RCD, getting to the green is the fun part...mostly untrue at Black.

BPB would be a better course, but I doubt you’d find it more fun because the typically 5 hour rounds would start pushing 6 hours!

[Rob Marshall]

When I played in Ireland I played probably the 4 best courses. RCD was the only one I truly thought played the way “I” thought a links course would play. I think on every green I missed I used a putter. Never hit a chip or pitch that I remember. The surrounds were all tight, firm and fast. I thought it was a great course but Lahinch was the course I loved.

[Mark_Fine]

RCD has flaws just like every other course out there (at least that I have seen including Pine Valley as discussed on the other thread) but it still one of the best courses on the planet.  It has been a while since I played it and I believe there have been some changes but the finishing two holes were weak. We all know another course in Monterrey where the last hole is considered by many to be marginal but most of us still give it a 10!  Like some others, there are too many great things about that course that override the issues.


The Black Course has already been mentioned as a course where the greens are not the star.  I have said in the past, I can’t even imagine how difficult The Black course would be if Tillie put Winged Foot West type greens at Bethpage Black 
OMG, it would be insane but would it be better, probably not. Sometimes architects know when to moderate vs go over the top. They remember their golf designs have to be played and not just looked at 

[Sean_A]

There are relatively few links with a highly engaging set of greens. It’s rare for folks to mention the greens specifically when waxing on about great links. So I gotta think on some level RCD wouldn’t be seen as a better course if it had more interesting greens. That said, I think if done well, hell yes, I would see RCD as a better course. That doesn’t mean I would tear up the greens though.


I usually think of flatter sites as benefitting most from highly engaging greens. Imagine Woodhall Spa with better greens.


Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

When I played in Ireland I played probably the 4 best courses. RCD was the only one I truly thought played the way “I” thought a links course would play. I think on every green I missed I used a putter. Never hit a chip or pitch that I remember. The surrounds were all tight, firm and fast. I thought it was a great course but Lahinch was the course I loved.

Sounds like you didn’t play at least one of the four best courses if that was your experience.

[Adam Lawrence]

In general, RCD is overrated.

I’m not saying it’s not great (it is) but to perennially be in the top-3 in the world places it above its station as a golf course. Its beauty and aesthetic plays a large part in its position.

Would it be better with more interest in the greens? I am not overly sure. It has been a while since I’ve been there and I can’t recall enough of the detail in the surrounds to say. I will be there again in a couple of months time. What I will say is that I do believe greens can be low-key and still add to greatness as long as the green sites themselves are varied and supremely placed.

I think I agree pretty closely with this. I remember that my first views of RCD and Portrush came on consecutive days. I saw RCD first, on a beautiful autumn day, and I came away thinking it was the best course I had ever seen. The following day I visited RP and came away thinking it was the best course I had ever seen. It occurred to me that both could not be correct, so I sat down and got a bit analytical, and I concluded that the most compelling thing about County Down was its sheer beauty, while I felt that _as a pure golf course, divorced from the views_ RP was better.


I think there are a lot of people whose judgement of courses is very heavily influenced by beauty. And there is nothing wrong with that: who doesn’t want to play golf in a beautiful place? Ironically I think I’m one of them to a large extent: a lot of my favourite courses are some of the most beautiful I’ve seen. But I think it’s important to be able to understand the distinction.

[Adam Lawrence]

There are relatively few links with a highly engaging set of greens. It’s rare for folks to mention the greens specifically when waxing on about great links. So I gotta think on some level RCD wouldn’t be seen as a better course if it had more interesting greens. That said, I think if done well, hell yes, I would see RCD as a better course. That doesn’t mean I would tear up the greens though.

I usually think of flatter sites as benefitting most from highly engaging greens. Imagine Woodhall Spa with better greens.

A good point I think. I am not as high on Woodhall as many are because to me it has not got compelling topography. And perhaps the greens are part of that.

[Mark_Fine]

RCD and RP - two of the best in the world.  Good luck deciding which 10 is better    It can be a fun discussion but you will not arrive at anything conclusive.  And if you try to establish certain criteria and judge things by breaking it down into different categories and numerically rate each one you will get crucified for it just like GD always does.  You can’t win.


Maybe GM does it best, they just know it when they see it    Where do they have RCD vs RP?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Maybe GM does it best, they just know it when they see it    Where do they have RCD vs RP?

The wrong way round.

[Ally Mcintosh]

There are relatively few links with a highly engaging set of greens. It’s rare for folks to mention the greens specifically when waxing on about great links. So I gotta think on some level RCD wouldn’t be seen as a better course if it had more interesting greens. That said, I think if done well, hell yes, I would see RCD as a better course. That doesn’t mean I would tear up the greens though.

I usually think of flatter sites as benefitting most from highly engaging greens. Imagine Woodhall Spa with better greens.

A good point I think. I am not as high on Woodhall as many are because to me it has not got compelling topography. And perhaps the greens are part of that.

In a practical sense, it’s often the opposite: Sites with violent topography often need movement in their greens to enable levels to be tied in from back to front or left to right…. Whereas flatter sites don’t need that movement.


On a flatter property, it is all the more important to use any natural feature possible to help site your green. And then use that feature to create some interest and movement in the green surface proper. Overly undulating greens on a pancake flat site can look quite artificial if not done well…. but fully agree that the “right” amount of design / interest inserted into flatter site greens can really elevate a course.

[Tim Gavrich]

I reject the premise that a set of greens must necessarily have a lot of internal movement in order to be eligible to be considered "great." I think the pursuit of "great" greens has caused some excesses. I'm coming around to the view that some of the hysterical greens that have been built in recent years are rather far from great, though some are, for sure. I don't associate Pete Dye with wild green contours; many of his courses are excellent not because the greens are wild, but because they fit perfectly with the other design elements. I feel similarly about the links courses whose greens aren't heavily contoured.


So to me, RCD's greens aren't what makes it slightly overrated; as others have suggested, if the greens had more going on, the course would cross the line between challenging and abusive. My take on RCD is that the course suffers a bit of a drop in quality between the incredible/world-class first 13 holes and the last five. It's not that those last five holes are bad (although 16 doesn't quite fit aesthetically; it's clearly a new and new-looking hole still), but it's more that the first baker's dozen are, IMO, sublime. The last act is a bit of a letdown, where Portrush, which I also give a slight edge over RCD, establishes a high level and finishes at a very high level. Calamity Corner needs no introduction and 17 is an incredible golf hole in its own right. RCD's 18th is probably the most disappointing hole because after a bunch of strategically interesting golf, it's a pure execution test: hit it straight, then hit it straight again.

[Thomas Dai]

A visual reminder - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TFA4M4-Jwks
Atb

[Mark_Fine]

Thomas,
Nice visual overview and supporting narrative but you have to play it to really appreciate it.  Does bring back memories 

[Jim Hoak]

"Low key."  "Complex."
Words I hate to see when talking about greens.  It is my opinion, as Tim's post says, that too many new courses are trying too hard to make greens stand-out from the rest of the course.  I am all for "interesting" and "subtle."  But I don't think that greens should veer toward miniature golf with "cute" features.
Greens need to reflect the rest of the course--and especially the roll of the land around the greens--an architectural feature expounded by the (arguably) best green builder of all times, Perry Maxwell.

[Sean_A]

There are relatively few links with a highly engaging set of greens. It’s rare for folks to mention the greens specifically when waxing on about great links. So I gotta think on some level RCD wouldn’t be seen as a better course if it had more interesting greens. That said, I think if done well, hell yes, I would see RCD as a better course. That doesn’t mean I would tear up the greens though.

I usually think of flatter sites as benefitting most from highly engaging greens. Imagine Woodhall Spa with better greens.

A good point I think. I am not as high on Woodhall as many are because to me it has not got compelling topography. And perhaps the greens are part of that.

In a practical sense, it’s often the opposite: Sites with violent topography often need movement in their greens to enable levels to be tied in from back to front or left to right…. Whereas flatter sites don’t need that movement.


On a flatter property, it is all the more important to use any natural feature possible to help site your green. And then use that feature to create some interest and movement in the green surface proper. Overly undulating greens on a pancake flat site can look quite artificial if not done well…. but fully agree that the “right” amount of design / interest inserted into flatter site greens can really elevate a course.

I am not suggesting wild greens…just interesting and varied greens. Although, a wild green or two is not out of the question imo.

I am also not bothered with a natural aesthetic except in rare circumstances. Golf styles and aesthetics are varied…and I am happy this is the case.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Thomas,
Nice visual overview and supporting narrative but you have to play it to really appreciate it.  Does bring back memories 

I have and it does.
Strong and challenging from tee-to-green. Too hard for many I suspect what with some of the forced carries and off the fairway is essentially hack out or lost ball territory. As mentioned by others the greens are on the relatively bland side but if they were as severe as the tee-to-green element of the course then a round would be measured in days rather than hours. These days I’d rather play the Annesley Course!
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

It's not like there are a lot of holes at RCD where you have enough room to play for an angle to a hole location, but better greens would probably provide a more interesting variety of short game shots, which is why a good set of greens is generally a must have.

[Mike Nuzzo]

The greens look average to smaller than some equally great courses and all of a similar size.

The surrounds often look very good and if the greens were expanded by height of cut they would still play the same but with more interesting "greens"

Several have some subtle internal contours.
Being built that much at grade - low to the ground - there is less vertical room to create contour.
The 8th green looks like the right side could use a bit of shaping to look more natural.
18 and a couple other greens could use some too....
I guess a tiny bit of contour would make it a tiny bit better for me - and not change where it sits in the world of golf.

[Michael Morandi]

RCD has flaws just like every other course out there (at least that I have seen including Pine Valley as discussed on the other thread) but it still one of the best courses on the planet.  It has been a while since I played it and I believe there have been some changes but the finishing two holes were weak. We all know another course in Monterrey where the last hole is considered by many to be marginal but most of us still give it a 10!  Like some others, there are too many great things about that course that override the issues.


The Black Course has already been mentioned as a course where the greens are not the star.  I have said in the past, I can’t even imagine how difficult The Black course would be if Tillie put Winged Foot West type greens at Bethpage Black 
OMG, it would be insane but would it be better, probably not. Sometimes architects know when to moderate vs go over the top. They remember their golf designs have to be played and not just looked at 

You are so right about the Black and raise a good question about balance.

[Michael Morandi]

I reject the premise that a set of greens must necessarily have a lot of internal movement in order to be eligible to be considered "great." I think the pursuit of "great" greens has caused some excesses. I'm coming around to the view that some of the hysterical greens that have been built in recent years are rather far from great, though some are, for sure. I don't associate Pete Dye with wild green contours; many of his courses are excellent not because the greens are wild, but because they fit perfectly with the other design elements. I feel similarly about the links courses whose greens aren't heavily contoured.


So to me, RCD's greens aren't what makes it slightly overrated; as others have suggested, if the greens had more going on, the course would cross the line between challenging and abusive. My take on RCD is that the course suffers a bit of a drop in quality between the incredible/world-class first 13 holes and the last five. It's not that those last five holes are bad (although 16 doesn't quite fit aesthetically; it's clearly a new and new-looking hole still), but it's more that the first baker's dozen are, IMO, sublime. The last act is a bit of a letdown, where Portrush, which I also give a slight edge over RCD, establishes a high level and finishes at a very high level. Calamity Corner needs no introduction and 17 is an incredible golf hole in its own right. RCD's 18th is probably the most disappointing hole because after a bunch of strategically interesting golf, it's a pure execution test: hit it straight, then hit it straight again.

Agree. Good thoughtful post