ANGC green complexes as a set

[Ran Morrissett]

Do the green complexes at ANGC present a homeogeneous picture?

By that, I mean you play Riviera and are rudely jarred when you see the new 8th green complex and the flying buttress extension to the 13th green  Same for Garden City and its infamous 12th  :-/ You play Yale GC and almost everyone leaves the 16th green complex sensing it was incongruent with the others (though its non-descript bland nature doesn't really rile people like the others mentioned above).

What about at ANGC? If one didn't know how greens like the 10th and 16th had been physically re-located and the significant changes to ones like the 7th and 9th, would you ever guess that the green complexes weren't all designed/built by the same man in the same general time period?

If you don't think a green (or greens) fits, which ones and why? How much does the incongruent feature(s)/green(s) hinder your appreciation of the course overall, if at all? Would you definitely exclude the green complexes at ANGC from being amongest the dozen or so finest in the world?

If you think that the green complexes overall work beautifully as set, do you consider that to be among the great feats in golf course architecture given all the different people who have had a hand in them? Would you definitely include the green complexes at ANGC amongest the dozen or so finest in the world, perhaps even the best?

Cheers,

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran,

I would agree with you in that one would be hard pressed to imagine that many of the greens were created by different hands at different times.  They exist today, as a homogeneous blend.  And because of that, credit must be given to those who have overseen the changes to those greens over the years.

There is a continuity to those greens and a sense that those greens have always been there in their current form.
I would not exclude them as being amongst the best set of greens in the U.S.

T

[larry_munger]

Ran, having discovered this site in last years SI, reading the old interviews and many of the course profiles, you just might be golf's best architectural writer (or at least in a small group including Tom Doak, Geoff Shackelford and Brad Klein) What are your top golf course green complexes? The Old Course, Pine Valley, Friar's Head, Crystal Downs, Prairie Dunes? Are Augusta's really the best?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Larry Munger,

How could you leave out Hollywood ?  

[Derek_Duncan]

Speaking only from how the greens are presented visually I don't find them all that consistent. There seems to be several green types at play. The 1st, 5th, 13th, 14th, and possibly the 7th are of the undulous and bubbled variety with rolls, hollows, and pockets. Others are less striking, characterized by slopes and ramps, such as the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 11th, 15th, and 17th. Then there are some plateau or tiered greens like the 6th (back right), 9th, 16th, and 18th. So to me there's a lack of uniformity, or even similarity. One green that stood out to me as being noticably differnt was the 2nd.

The real issue, one that I can't answer, is how they work as a set receiving shots. Is there consistency in how they play? Is that type of consistency even desirable? What is the effect of having to adjust between a sublty sloping green to one with wild contours?

[Joel_Stewart]

Speaking only from how the greens are presented visually I don't find them all that consistent.

I haven't played ANGC but from what I understand the greens presented during the Masters are quite different speed wise then during normal member play.  I know Ran and Pat have played there so most likely they can't appreciate the speed which we are seeing and how the placements of shots is so critical.  

Personally I think they look consistent but maybe my eye isn't as well trained as others.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Derek Duncan,

Are you speaking about the presentation as seen on Television, or the presentation when actually playing the golf course ?

[Derek_Duncan]

Pat,

Not playing, walking. I was surprised to see what to me seemed like a wide variety of green styles, as I described above.

[ForkaB]

This is an interesting (dare I say "complex"?) question.  Depends on what you mean by "homogeneous."

IMO (based on second-hand obsevation re: ANGC):

Yes--in terms of consistency of firmess and fastness
Yes--in terms of dramatic contours
Yes--in terms of non-MacKenzieish green side bunkering
No--in terms of similarities of size or shape (not unsurprising...)
No--in terms of ground game options

All in all, I would say that ANGC is probably more "homogeneous" than other places of similar repute that I have played.  nEVERTHELESS

[ForkaB]

This is an interesting (dare I say "complex"?) question.  Depends on what you mean by "homogeneous."

IMO (based on second-hand obsevation re: ANGC):

Yes--in terms of consistency of firmess and fastness
Yes--in terms of dramatic contours
Yes--in terms of non-MacKenzieish green side bunkering
Yes--in terms of consistency of bunker surfaces and sand
No--in terms of similarities of size or shape (not unsurprising...)
No--in terms of ground game options

All in all, I would say that ANGC is probably more "homogeneous" than other places of similar repute that I have played.  Nevertheless, I think that only the two "consistency" criteria (green and bunker playability) are really important for GCA.  Variety is the spice of life, and a degree of "inconsistency" in terms of size, shape, countours, and strategic options for approach is a good thing, IMHO.  Viz, TOC, e.g.

[BCrosby]

The greens at ANGC are very diffirent in any number of ways. Given the many hands that have worked on the course, it is hard to tell who did what, but the word "homogenous" is not a word that comes to mind.

Some differences:

 - Large internal contours. Elevation changes that dominate the putting surface (3, 5, 13, 14, 18 - these tend to be but, are not always, old MacK greens that have changed the least)

 - Small scale contours. Small, distinct dips and humps that extend no more than a couple of yards (1, 7,

 - Flatish, though angled surfaces (2, 9, 11, 15, 17)

The last two categories, to my eye, are cleary greens revised or revuilt by people other than MacK.

Green approaches

It's never been very hard to distinguish aerial approaches to par 4's that are for the most part the result of the work of Maxwell or Jones. The remaining MacK approaches (3, 5, 11, 14 and maybe 18) all offer a ground approach as a real option.

I can't think of a single Maxwell/Jones par 4 approach where playing it on the ground is a real choice.

Along the same lines, am I the only one who thinks that the same archtitect couldn't have possibly designed the green surrounds on 10 and 15?

Bob