Square Greens

[TEPaul]

     I've been reading the course descriptions in the "Courses by Architects" section and noticed that the so-called "unique square greens" of Yeamans Hall G.C. have been restored recently by Tom Doak. My Ross course (and others) in Philadelphia has just approved a comprehensive master plan by Gil Hanse (worked with Doak at Stonewall).      Can anyone give me any architectural history of the square green? Era, architects, courses that have (had) them etc. At least 5-6 of our original greens were square and some others basically square with very interesting "flairs" on the corners. These particular greens had, individually, front to back tier, side to side tier, spine with two rear cupping hollows, center depression and one with a significant "kick-up". This knowledge and ability to restore is the result of some excellent Victor Dallin aerials from the 20s and 30s. Our present greens have shrunk bigtime. Appreciate any info on square greens.    

[Ward P]

Finally something I can jump in on amongst you illuminati of the links. I played Yeamans this summer with (need I say it) Ted Sturges and the square greens, along with the square tees were a subtle but pleasing feature of this understated yet grand layout. Perhaps for several reasons. Obviously on the flat coastal plain at the time moving mass quantities of dirt was extreme so i think this must have been a device to frame and present the idiosynchrocies of the green platform to those "reading" it from an approach shot. Together with the sqaure tees these square corners provid a unifying link between the tee and green all of which are further framed by groves of massive live oaks , columnar hollies and magnolias, and other semi evergreen trees at their peak in the non- summer months when the cludb would be most active. With all this somewhat large scale perspective going on these squared corners are great little touches that bring the main point of it all, the jar, into focus for us mere mortals. didin't help with your question but maybe some of this explains how this feature started.  

[TEPaul]

Despite some of the artistic counterpoint explanations offerd by WardP for Yeamen's Hall G.C's. square greens, isn't it more likely that this style was the result of an era of high production and minimal architectural input which was the modus operandi of such otherwise good architects as  Bendelow and Ross? Routings were basically quickly staked and the details and  features were often left to those who remained. This era, briefly referred to in the Architects of Golf by Cornish and Whitten was labeled the "geometric style" (square greens, rectangular bunkering, berms etc.) is shown in a few photos (St. Augustine G.C., Chicago G.C., Merion Cricket, Highland C.C.). It seems Cornish's implication is that this was a high production, low thought, low point in American architecture. Like to hear the thought of architectural histoians such as Doak and GCTjr.

[Ran Morrissett]

Certainly Tom Dunn and Old Tom Morris built more than their fair share of square greens in the 1800s. According to my hero Sir Guy Campbell, Willie Park bridged the gap from the stylized functional designs of the 19th century until golf's Golden Age. Park firmly believed greens should be of different shapes and sizes and Maidstone and Sunningdale exemplifed this new trend in architecture. Finally, by 1929, Tom Simpson was saying greens should never be formal in design and that pear-shaped in general was preferred.[Note:  David]

[Tom Naccarato]

Geoff Shackelford's new book "The Golden Age of Golf Architecture" (Sleeping Bear) has some very interesting photos of geometric design that predated golf's greatest era. Let's just say that design is far removed from what Bob Cupp was trying to accomplish with the irritating Palmetto Hall.  It was intersting to say the least.  Considering this style of design wasn't really even a style, at least out here on the left coast where so little was known about the game.Geoff's book shows Annadale in Pasadena, and several other shots of choclate drops and rectangular bunkering and mounds from other courses.  

[George_Bahto]

Square Greens:  In the "world" of Macdonald / Raynor the greens should be "squarish".  Chicago Golf has 90 degree SQUARE greens and I would think the greens at Yeamans (played it 2 weeks ago) were done like Chicago.  Can't remember seeing anyplace else where they are 90 degrees square - certainly not National or any old pictures of National.Pedrhaps Tom could give us some of his insight on Yeamans.

[Ran Morrissett]

To George:Having just played it, where would you put Yeamans Hall relative to Raynor's other works as a place you like to play?Ran

[RobertWalker]

Exactly what are square greens? Does that mean that the green has four 90 degree corners, and four equal sides? How would the green at the 18th hole at the Old Course  be described? I started  thinking about geometry and forced shapes in golf course design. One of the features that I like most about the Old Course is the joining of the urban shape with the course. This forces a geometric shape into the game, and the game into the village. (it takes a golf course)Another example that comes to mind is the circle. At seminole, on the 18th hole, there is a bunker with a 10 ft diameter circle of grass. Nearby is a circular bunker 10 ft in diameter. Was that D Ross’s idea? Has anybody noticed that?

[DBE]

Robert, Brian Silva redid all the fairway bunkers at Seminole a couple of seasons ago.  No doubt he changed the shape of the ones you question (left of drive zone on #18).  All in all though, he did a very good job.  Most people who played there before and after this project ask frequently "is that a new bunker"?

[Ted_Sturges]

George,Didn't know you visited Yeamans recently.  What do you think of the place with her new set of greens?  I'm eager to hear you answer Ran's question as well.Also, as a set, I think the greens at Fox Chapel in Pittsburgh are among the most square I've seen.  Pretty neat set of Raynor greens, as a group.

[George_Bahto]

To Ran: the ambiance of the place is very special and as Tom noted in his Conf. Guide, the entrance is one of the great ones in golf (the damn road is being worked over right now and is like a wash board - you drive about 5 mi an hour or your car falls apart).  The course was once one of the most respected in the south - the elderly membership did it in and Tom's company (Jim Urbina in particular) did an outstanding job putting the undulations back on to their decimated greens. I would not put it anywhere near the top of Raynor's work unless the fairway bunkering was reestablished but that would have to be at modern standards (carries). Hopefully Tom & Co. will get the job when the club gets the necessary funding.  Sorry if that is kind of a non-answer but as it stands right now there is still a lot to do - if the fairway bunkering gets done we might have a track that commands an awful lot of respect.All that said: I LOVE THE PLACE WITH A PASSION !!Ted: Fox Chapel is really nice but not at the top of the (Raynor) heap. Fun to play but there have been many alterations to the original design. I understand something is or has been done there recently - anyone know who and what ??Robert Walker: Square greens in this context that we have been speaking (speaking ?) about means the corners, especially the fronts are presently being mowed at 90 degrees. I've got an awful lot of old material on Macdonald/ Raynor/ Banks and have yet to see absolutely square corners.  Chicago seems to have been the first to have mowed this pattern.

[TEPaul]

George Bahto:       Thanks for the info on square greens and the Macdonald/Raynor info.         The reason I asked the question is my course, Gulph Mills G.C. in Philadephia , had a master plan done by Gil Hanse. We are very happy with the plan (Plan is restoration!!-work has not started). GeoffS thinks it is as good and comprenhesive a plan as he has seen. There is an excellent text supplement supporting Gil's thinking.            The course is 1916-1919 Donald Ross. Counting Gil, eight architects have been through the course from beginning to present-that is almost as many as I can find anywhere except, Pittsburgh Field Club, Augusta and maybe one or two others. Most of the architects were good ones (exception RTJ hole changes to provide for a practice range are weak and out of character). We particularly love our 4-5 Perry Maxwell holes and greens! The Ross origianals are 1-6 and 15-18. Of these many of the greens were square. The squareness of the pads in the back is obvious, not so obvious in the front as the greens meld nicely into the upslope approaches (original subtle false fronts??)       I've done a design evolution report using Victor Dallin aerials from the 20s and 30s and the complete Board minutes from the beginning of the club. There is mention in the minutes from 1925 of the club having seventeen of the greens "rebuilt" by Toomey and Flynn for $650. each. This work unfortunately preceded the first of the aerials so I don't know what the greens looked like previous to T & F's work.       My final question is; $650. was alot of money in 1925, how much work or alteration do you think T & L did? Do you think they might have changed the shapes and contours of the greens or just redid what was there from Ross (drainage problems, bad grass, whatever)? There are some good Toomey and Flynn course around here but I haven't noticed if any of their greens were ever squarish. If Dave Staebler reads this he may have some input from the evolution of Rolling Green.

[George_Bahto]

TEPaul: Gil should do a VG jobAt $650 a green in the 20's there had to have been an awful lot of work done - don't you think ... ?   Rayor's fees at the time had been "raised" to about $4,000 (1925) for a whole course and I think he may have been one of the higher paid architects. Was the $650 just the architectural fee or did it include maerial and all is the question I guess?The square "look" may be something T & F were doing at the time.  To the best of my limited knowledge the square stuff was from the very early days not the 20's.Geoff (either of them) Geoff S or Geoff C. should be able to help.The Ross guy should know.  How about Ron Forse?

[TEPaul]

George:Thanks for the info. The $650 was for the whole job, I think, but the club minutes are a little cryptic; just says seventeen greens were rebuilt by Flynn & Toomey (they got the name wrong) for $650 complete. Ron Forse was here but he didn't mention much about the total 90% corner greens; he was very interested in the squarish greens which had the "wild Flairs" on the corners. I will ask GeoffS about this after I read his new book.

[Doug Wright]

Watching the Golf Channel coverage of the Hope last night and saw Nike's ad for its new square driver via shots of square bunkers and a square green. Then came across this 1999 thread today. I don't recall playing a course with a square green, but sounds like it's a Raynor staple. Anyone else besides Raynor (Desmond Muirhead?) do these? Would anyone do them now?

[Scott Witter]

Doug:

Of the many old classic courses I have seen, toured, studied and played, many have had at least 'squarish' putting surfaces.

I have a current project that has these squared-off surfaces and the club loves them (well now that they know how cool they are ...unfortunately, most of their characteristic shape and strategy has been lost, and they, like so many others around the country are now very rounded.  Fortunately though, through much education over the past few years, I have been able to show them the positive attributes of returning the square shapes.

Mark Fine and I are also working on a very interesting course, circa 1922 (by all accounts and research completed to date so far we believe it to be an Devereux Emmet course) that clearly had/has squared-off surfaces and we are recommending their return as well.  The amount of great usable surface lost over the years is huge and the original strategy makes the quality of the hole in many circumstances.  I love the old shapes and as we often talk about on this site; great strategic surfaces and green sites are where the fun is and where scoring is gained or lost

[Dan_Callahan]

Arthur Hills did one at Newport National. I didn't like it. Seemed out of place when every other green had softer angles.

[Scott Witter]

I seem to remember a while back, maybe a year...seeing some photos posted here on a course in the Chicago area that Forse (I think) returned the old squared-off surfaces.  The pictures were taken from overhead so you could see clearly the evolved round shapes versus the original and the amount of lost surface.  It was quite dramatic

Maybe someone who knows how to search this could repost those photos, I don't

[D_Malley]

tom
many of the original greens at paxon hollow are square, although the corners are not currently being kept as green.  i would love to see some of those back corners restored to green space.  also i was recently looking at some old aerials of springhaven, and their greens and bunkers were very square pre 1920. in fact the current 8th green was square with an 'L" shaped bunker around one edge.  it seemed like the squareness was taken out as a result of flynn's influence.

[Dean Paolucci]

Tom - As I hope you remember, every push up green site at Glen Ridge has been restored to the original Willie Park, Jr square shape.  Force et al. did a masterful job and with the expansions done in native turf (grown from cores) the surfaces are almost indecernable.  The membership cannot believe the many new and wonderful cupping positions that have been presented.

[Mark_Fine]

Many of the classic architects designed squarish greens.  Very few, designed round ones that just looked like circles!  I've often said for example, if you come across a round green on a Donald Ross course, it was most likely redesigned or has just lost its edges.  Most older greens have changed from mowing practices which tends to "round them off".  

Here is an example from a Ross course we are working on in New England.  I prefer not to mention the name at this time.  

Raynor surely didn't have the market "cornered" on square greens  

[Tim Liddy]

Tom Paul

In terms of Ross’s work, I worry you are over-thinking this a bit as fill pads in the early part of the century were typically put in a square fashion because of the process of hauling the earth with horses and scrapers, placing it in a pad for the green.  Not for artistic purpose but solely a function of how the earth was moved. After the earth was placed it would then be shaped by hand with shovels and rakes, which leaves the overall remaining square shape of the fill pad placed earlier by horses (especially in the back of the greens where the elevation of the fill pads was the greatest). Also, since greens were mowed with hand mowers the square shape would remain until the 1950’s when riding mowers were used and corners would become rounded over time. Then add irrigation in the 1960’s and the round green shape is reinforced on a square fill pad.

In terms on McDonald and Raynor, I think it is a bit more of a mixture, as a preference and as a construction process. What do you think?

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul

In terms of Ross’s work, I worry you are over-thinking this a bit as fill pads in the early part of the century were typically put in a square fashion because of the process of hauling the earth with horses and scrapers, placing it in a pad for the green.  Not for artistic purpose but solely a function of how the earth was moved. After the earth was placed it would then be shaped by hand with shovels and rakes, which leaves the overall remaining square shape of the fill pad placed earlier by horses (especially in the back of the greens where the elevation of the fill pads was the greatest). Also, since greens were mowed with hand mowers the square shape would remain until the 1950’s when riding mowers were used and corners would become rounded over time. Then add irrigation in the 1960’s and the round green shape is reinforced on a square fill pad.

In terms on McDonald and Raynor, I think it is a bit more of a mixture, as a preference and as a construction process. What do you think?"

Tim Liddy:

Just hold on there. You've obviously said about 20 mouthfuls there. I don't think I'm processing it or understanding it all but I'm going to question you and question you until I do understand what you mean.

OK?

[Don_Mahaffey]

Tim'
First off let me be clear, I know next to nothing about classic era golf course construction.
But, are you telling me they couldn't figure out how to use a horse and scraper to do a bit of finish shaping...that it all had to be done with shovels and rakes? Really?

And, it's easy to turn a bit with a hand mower...and as I understand it, the early riders sucked.

I don't know anything, but I'm guessing that if the greens were square it's because the guys who built 'em wanted 'em square.

[Tim Liddy]

Tom,

I can hear the construction foreman now; “Mr. Ross will be here next week and we need to get the fill pads for the greens on the front nine for his review”.  Whereas he might raise a few, lower a few, etc until he could see the different green elevations he wanted. He would not build detail into them until this was completed.  He would start simply and add detail and complexity during the construction.

As you know the earth was taken from the nearby rough or fairway. I do not think they built all the green details per the drawings but roughed them in for on site review.  Then Ross would stake out some bunkers or go back to the office and sketch them out, or a combination of both until the next site visit. Please understand the majority of workers did not have any idea about a golf course, so much of the instruction was pick up earth at “A” and place at “B”.  Then we will build the bunkers, add detail, etc.

Yes, he had Scotts building many of his golf courses, but I am sure they were busy with the detail work of bunkers, green surfaces; etc after the dirt had been bulked in place.

I think you are giving Mr. Ross too much credit if you think he worked it all out on paper before construction began (“I want a square green here”).  Yes, the planning for the greens, tees bunkers, but not the details-hence all his notes about “add 2’ here” etc. He also flowed many of his horizon lines with the existing terrain, etc.

The man is still a genius, but it a process and building a square fill pad would be the first step in the process for efficiency and review in the field.  He did not design 100% of it on paper beforehand. If he was not present, one of his staff or experienced crew members would fill this roll-some in a more artistic way than another.