Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Joe Hancock on November 29, 2009, 07:06:46 PM
-
I like the rumpled look as much as anyone. But, if one were to design a golf course where the ground was fully intended to be utilized strategically, would you do the outrageous rumpled look we've seen in recent posts?
If you designed a Redan whereby you expect the ball to be brought in off an off-green bank...would you rumple it?
If you designed a green with an open front with the intent of encouraging a grounded approach...would you rumple it?
Am I over-thinking strategy and the need for the ground to work in harmony with the rest of the course, design and maintenance included?
Joe
-
Moderation in all things, including moderation.
That being said - I think rumpled, uncertain ground can be an effective hazard used in lieu of bunkers or high rough.
-
Joe,
This photo from Ran's review of Prairie Dunes depicts nice rumple and to my eye looks very inviting to a ground approach.
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/Prairie9t.JPG)
It is not The Chase however.
-
"Am I over-thinking strategy and the need for the ground to work in harmony with the rest of the course, design and maintenance included?"
Joe:
I don't think you are at all, although I'm not sure what you mean by working in harmony with the rest of the course. I've seen some pretty interesting manufactured subtle (and not so subtle) topographical features in approaches and such both from the old days and recently. As long as they are somewhat understandable to golfers and the strategic effects of them they should be cool.
On the subject and question of rumpled ground though I did get an interesting education on that many years ago from Coore. He likes the smaller stuff (unless I guess he is dealing with something like a Kapalua) and feels if it gets too big (size or scale-wise) that golf and architecture can sort of get lost in it or it can create some other unintended problems. That was one I learned from him which admittedly really took me by surprise but I do catch his point in certain circumstances and for certain reasons.
Man, I just love speaking with people like that or say a Kelly Blake Moran or Lester George or a Gil Hanse or a Mike DeVries. Just when you think you have them somewhat figured out and where they are coming from they will pull the old switcheroo on you with something! That's what makes this all so interesting to me. To me if all golf course architects thought even remotely alike I think it would eventually become pretty boring or even depressing! ;)
-
You will note that the last 30 yards into that Prairie Dunes green are fairly unrumpled. I agree that in general, the more predictable the slope, the more likely it is to be used by golfers. A slope should be fairly constant left, right, up or down, but can have subtle rumples. If they get too big, aren't they just deflection mounds?
Going back to the shot above, I like how the left side of the green has a slightly larger ridge than the right side, but they are both fairly constant. But if the sharper slopes short of the green were any closer, the would probably prevent the run up shot, especially when the hole was first built and longer allowances had to be made for the run in. Now, those run ins are presumably shorter than in the old days and the photo looks very inviting to the run up.
In the modern game, who runs it up from over 60 yards or under 200 yards?
-
Nobody on overwatered fairways :(
-
Rumbled gives a more natural feel. All for it.
Anthony
-
Anthony,
Even in the rolling but not rumpled midwest? Gentle, but smooth rolls are the more natual topography in any place I have lived......
-
Nobody on overwatered fairways :(
In my part of the world , midwest USA, there is NO ground game. Every course is overwatered to the point of silliness. 90% of the members are clueless and think green equals good shape.
-
I would actually love to see some stats about overwatering! I am convinced that fewer courses are overwatered than the typical gca.com member thinks. So many have computers now and the ones that do can tell nearly exactly how much water the turf takes.
For that matter I would love some grad student interested in gca to survey via Google Earth every golf course in the US to see what percentage of geens have the fronts blocked nearly completely off by bunkers preventing the ground game. My guess is that modern US courses have nearly as many mostly open front greens as the old ones, although it might be hard to tell if and when bunkers were added to older courses.
I would not be surprised, however, if modern greens as a whole tend to be a bit more elevated than older greens.
-
Jeff-
Here is "my stat" on overwatering.
It has not rained in a month and my tee shot backs up.
Please ask your grad students to study that.
-
Mike,
Have your local high tech pro tell you how much spin you have on that driver. I am guessing well over 2700 RPM.
Seriously, ball marks and everything in the fw? I know overwatering does occur, and supers will replace all the EVT lost, rather than letting soil dry out a bit (a pet peeve of mine) but if your super really keeps it that wet, he probably has poa annua with a poor root system (which happens nearly everywhere) and no one wants to take the trouble to start over and re-seed. Overwatering leads to disease, compaction, etc., so I think he is trying to overcome some agronomic problem over which he has little control.
I still say today's enlightened supers are watering less and less as a rule of thumb, based on my own experience.
-
I still say today's enlightened supers are watering less and less as a rule of thumb, based on my own experience.
Our super has been on a drying out plan for three years and still the ground game is non existent.
The members in these parts like green and soft. Sad but true.
-
So the ground game doesn't exist.
Should an architect even consider the ground game when designing....in the Midwest? Based on current discussion, I would say no.
If the ground game is a non-factor, why spend time rumpling ground that isn't inherently so already? Is the opportunity to create funky lies and stances the only reason(and are they good enough reasons?), or is aesthetics a good reason to spend the money building rumple?
Is rumple simply the case of a UK lover that the USA can't(or won't) have?.....
Joe
-
Jeff makes a good point and I believe I have mistakenly lumped rumpled and rolling topography into the same category when they are different things.
Here’s some rolling land I’m fond of
(http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr7/rednorman/StAlberts14th.jpg)
And some examples of rumple I’ve found here on gca
(http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr7/rednorman/augsept07073.jpg)
(http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr7/rednorman/SAPennard7church.jpg)
(http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr7/rednorman/rumpledfairway-1.jpg)
(http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr7/rednorman/bar-1.jpg)
(http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr7/rednorman/ripples-1.jpg)
(http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr7/rednorman/WP-1.jpg)
Some places are clearly better off without it
(http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr7/rednorman/sfgc.jpg)
Some are ever so subtle
(http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr7/rednorman/Oakmont10bg.jpg)
(http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr7/rednorman/Golf20Course20003a.jpg)
Some not so much
(http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr7/rednorman/golf1.jpg)
An excellent topic Joe and I hope to learn more as we go. Thanks!
-
I like the rumpled look as much as anyone. But, if one were to design a golf course where the ground was fully intended to be utilized strategically, would you do the outrageous rumpled look we've seen in recent posts?
If you designed a Redan whereby you expect the ball to be brought in off an off-green bank...would you rumple it?
If you designed a green with an open front with the intent of encouraging a grounded approach...would you rumple it?
Am I over-thinking strategy and the need for the ground to work in harmony with the rest of the course, design and maintenance included?
Joe
Joe
I am not sure why one wouldn't want rumpled fairways. There isn't much point in a ground game if the best angle of approach doesn't have to be earned. I harp on all the time about reducing bunkers. How else does my ideal work unless the land is rumpled? One still has the option of flying (even short shots) or bumping shots. We often focus on larger scale rumples or off-shoots of dunes, but the wee micro rumples can be just as effective.
You just never know if you are gonna catch an upslope and look stupid. So, do you bump it, putt it or fly it? These are a few of the ultimate questions in golf probably because tehre is no right answer.
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff114/seanrobertarble/KINGTON/20March2009058.jpg?t=1240916147)
Ciao
-
Eric and Sean,
Thanks for the pictures. It helps with the discussion.
Sean,
I can't imagine taking my chances on the ground in that picture you posted. There's no way to predict an outcome, so it becomes a game of chance. Am I not looking at it in totality?
Thanks guys,
Joe
-
Eric and Sean,
Thanks for the pictures. It helps with the discussion.
Sean,
I can't imagine taking my chances on the ground in that picture you posted. There's no way to predict an outcome, so it becomes a game of chance. Am I not looking at it in totality?
Thanks guys,
Joe
Joe
A load depends on how good one is with spinning shorts shots off firm ground, one's lie, the lie of the land, the wind and where the flag is. For sure, if one chooses the ground route there is some chance involved, but experience and skill greatly reduce the element of chance. In others words, getting up and down is far from a matter of luck. It is amazing to watch how skillful old Kington members are with this shot on the ground. It takes a while to figure out what to do at Kington. I am only a novice, but I am getting there.
Ciao
-
I like rumpled when it fits with the surrounding terrain such that it looks natural.
For example, in the 2nd or 3rd picture in Eric's post there is a farm with a house at the top of the hill. The "rumpling" in the course looks completely out of place against the big rolling slope that frames it.
If you are going to create "rumpling" it should look like its been there, otherwise it looks more manufactured than a flatter alternative. The best courses, as has been pointed out by Tom Doak in the past are the ones where you cant tell which features were there before the course and which were created. Part of achieving that goal is making sure that the features you do create fit in with the natural landscape.
-
In the modern game, who runs it up from over 60 yards or under 200 yards?
It depends on how the hole is designed.
If percentage play is to run it up than the smart player will.
Just because most can't doesn't mean it should be ignored.
Joe
Don't give up just because it is overwatered TODAY.
It won't be in 10-40 years.
I like the rumples to vary on and between the holes.
I like the ones we built on #10.
I like them best when the rumples and the green look like they are related.
-
nuff said:
-
I like them best when the rumples and the green look like they are related.
Bingo Mike.
-
Don't give up just because it is overwatered TODAY.
It won't be in 10-40 years.
This is a great quote. Mind if I use it from time to time? :)
Joe
-
JC - you said "I like rumpled when it fits with the surrounding terrain such that it looks natural."
what if the terrain is naturally rumpled, but the surrounding vistas are rolling and smooth, like in that picture? In that case would you recommend flattening out the rumple? Is "looks natural" more imporant than "is natural?"
-
JC - you said "I like rumpled when it fits with the surrounding terrain such that it looks natural."
what if the terrain is naturally rumpled, but the surrounding vistas are rolling and smooth, like in that picture? In that case would you recommend flattening out the rumple? Is "looks natural" more imporant than "is natural?"
No, and you are absolutely on point. Natural is much more important than looks natural. I was operating (perhaps wrongly) on the assumption that those rumples were manufactured.
I will modify my post to say that I am down with natural rumples (always) and that I am down with unnatural rumples to the extent they blend in with the terrain present before the course was built.
Thanks, Kirk.
-
What's the rumpus?
To me, rumpled implies natural, or at least not overly landscaped "fair".
And I've always thought of it more as something that influences stance and thus shot, not its inclination to promote the ground game.
-
nuff said:
Jud, those fairways probably sand based and probably drain exceedingly well, plus the overall slope of the land is toward the water.
In locations where the soil conditions aren't sand, and you don't have a general slope toward a body of water, drainage and permitting is a more difficult task.
But, they sure are neat looking
-
Well, there's been several good comments concerning rumple and the ground game/ strategy.
But, and I assumed this would happen.....the main interest in rumple seems to be in the aesthetic.....not that there's anything wrong with that!
Joe
-
In the modern game, who runs it up from over 60 yards or under 200 yards?
I would say a good majority of golfers play the game on the ground...it may not be their intention, but the ball probably rolls into greens a good number of times.
Kellly,
You are right of course. They say 70 is the new 50. But, as we hit our 70's (and 50's and 60's) it turns out that 160 is the new 200 yards!
To others:
I still maintain that rumples, while they have their advantages, work best in sandy soil and when and where there are some kind of rumples in nature. Where nature provides rolling hills, I think rolling fw are a better match overall visually and can stll provide a nice sidehilll, downhill, or uphill lie. Gentler rolls can't provide a left sidehill lie with a right sidehill stance as well, that is for sure!
I also recently reread Tom Watson's Strategic Golf and somewhere in it he says its always a good idea to find the flattest area of the fw with your tee shot. If rumpled, I prefer to grind off at least a small portion of the fw to a leveler slope for those few golfers smart enough to try to find it, and at a variety of distances from the tee over the course of the round. Rumples make it tougher, but do they introduce or negate strategy?
-
Well, Joe, since you are insisting that this thread be all about you and your questions ;D ...I'll play the game.....
I like the rumpled look as much as anyone. But, if one were to design a golf course where the ground was fully intended to be utilized strategically, would you do the outrageous rumpled look we've seen in recent posts?
No, I don't believe you would. I think that rumples and contouring around the green add shot variety to the ground game but I dont think you would do rumples for the sake of rumples that (I agree) have become vogue for some faux-minimalist designers (i.e. DMK). However, if the rumples are there to begin with, I think a good architect would leave them there and figure out the best ways to utilize them.
So, in sum, I think rumples are an integral part of the ground game but just like anything else, there is such thing as too much of a good thing, especially when it is completely manufactured.
Am I over-thinking strategy and the need for the ground to work in harmony with the rest of the course, design and maintenance included?
Joe
Does over-thinking pre-suppose actual thinking? ;)
-
JC,
Thank you for finally getting your priorities(me!) straight. :)
I agree with your observations about the implementation of rumple...sometimes it's done "just" for the look....sometimes that's important. With DeVries' work, we try very hard to be not too clean, but we don't over-cook the rumple either....it's a look thing as much as anything, but it does impact play as well. Too much, as you said, can be a detractor to play as much as an addition to it.
What led me to this topic is that I've often thought of strategic design from the players perspective. In order to make a player chose one route/ one shot type over another is to offer alternatives....a shot on a direct line vs. a shot that deflects off a feature, for example.
If one were to design a hole with various routes, rumple(or lack thereof) could affect which route the player chooses. The players ability also comes into play. If I have the choice between a flop shot or a bump-and-run, I go the ground route due to LOFT(the acronym type). With my own preferences in mind, i would try to design a green complex with multiple options on the ground as well as a straight ahead aerial option. I also happen to think it provides a bit more adventure.
All that to say that a plateau type green isn't acceptable...it most certainly is! Variety needs to be present. A punchbowl green would be the exact opposite, and likely provides the most options as it would be almost 360 degrees of choices.
Too many thoughts and ideas, not enough clarity on any of them....but something to think about on a cloudy day.
Joe
-
Too many thoughts and ideas, not enough clarity on any of them....but something to think about on a cloudy day.
... bring on the RumpleMinze! 8)
(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d127/tomskoolstuff/bar2/rumpl1.jpg)
-
I think one of the reasons I'm so enamored with rumpled fairways is that none of the courses I grew up playing had them. There was generally some slope to each hole, either side-slope or up or down hill or some variation (I grew up in Colorado), and on the flatter courses there might be the occasional hillock or use of mounding. Nothing, though, like what's seen on some of the links courses or on courses like Ballyneal. I like it for a lot of reasons. First, because I love watching a ball roll on the ground. Second only to watching a ball arc through the air, it is to me one of the basic joys of golf. Playing the roll is just fun. Playing the roll well is even more fun. Second, a rumpled fairway adds strategy, or at least choice, to the tee shot. If I'm thinking at all about where I'd like to play my next shot from, then finding a reasonably level place in the fairway to hit from is important. I like the notion that if I miss that spot, then I get a more challenging lie to hit from, but not something like rough or bunkering, where your next is more in the realm of a recovery shot. Third, from an aesthetic viewpoint, it's so different from the look of the courses I grew up on. That close-mown grass (to me a look that is FAR from natural, but none the less beautiful because of it) draped over all of those little slopes and valleys.....is just gorgeous.
-
Eric,
Now that's what I call rumpled... ;D
-
Anthony,
Even in the rolling but not rumpled midwest? Gentle, but smooth rolls are the more natual topography in any place I have lived......
Spot on Jeff. Surely context has to be a factor.
Also when the course is playing fast and fire you don't need over elaborate rumples to make the ground game interesting. Indeed overly countered rumples which basically present banks and abrupt ridges can spoil the ground game and make the player take the aerial route.
Niall
-
Niall,
Thanks. You know, I have read and heard TePaul posit that bunkers should be reduced because they are not natural in many places away from the sea coast. The same is really true of rumples, too. If we praise natural, but then also praise building rumples where non existed, providing we move enough earth to tie them into the greens and surrounds, well I get confused.
If that is the way you want it, then philosophically, you may as well admit you want to build what you like, and just damn nature all together, no? Funny, but that sounds exactly like what you guys criticize Fazio, et. al., for isn't it?
-
Eric, any chance of listing where each of those pics are from?
-
Jeff
I haven't played any of Mr Fazio's courses so can't comment. I have however played a few Trent Jones courses and thoroughly enjoyed them even though there was nothing to tie rumples any rumples into apart from adjacent housing development, not that I noticed any rumples of course. I just took the course for what they were and enjoyed them for it.
I suspect if I played a Fazio I would enjoy it just the same.
Perhaps its because that is the type of course I expect on a residential development and therefore it appears in context to me. I'm not sure, but I'm not offended by it. A course where the architect has clearly shifted mountains of earth to create a "natural look" that doesn't gel with the surrounds, well it just looks odd.
You wouldn't come to Scotland to play desert golf courses and I don't go to the states to play links (fast and firm, yes where conditions are applicable, but not links, or at least Scottish style links).
Many months ago there was a thread on Castle Stuart which got quite heated over bunker design and the use of sleepers. There was much toing and froing and people producing old black and white photos to justify the look. At the end of the day it was clear that the course just looked out of context to (most) UK golfers who participated in the thread but was OK to overseas players. Whoever was right or wrong (we were right by the way ;) ) didn't make it a bad course.
Anyway back to the point about strategy and rumples, I suggest that subtle is better.
Niall
-
Eric, any chance of listing where each of those pics are from?
Youbetcha
My family's farm in Tennessee
(http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr7/rednorman/StAlberts14th.jpg)
The rest of these are from contributors on here.
This one I'm not sure...possibly Sean Arble took this one?
(http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr7/rednorman/augsept07073.jpg)
This is one of Sean's pics of Pennard. Hey I'm going to meet you here Scott at Buda 2010!
(http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr7/rednorman/SAPennard7church.jpg)
Again not sure...?
(http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr7/rednorman/rumpledfairway-1.jpg)
Barnbougle Dunes
(http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr7/rednorman/bar-1.jpg)
Goodwood
(http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr7/rednorman/ripples-1.jpg)
Wolf Point
(http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr7/rednorman/WP-1.jpg)
San Francisco
(http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr7/rednorman/sfgc.jpg)
Oakmont
(http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr7/rednorman/Oakmont10bg.jpg)
Aetna Springs
(http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr7/rednorman/Golf20Course20003a.jpg)
Rarity Pointe
(http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr7/rednorman/golf1.jpg)
-
Thanks for labeling the pix. A few things to note:
- photos tend to not show contours well, unless taken by an experienced photographer, who may use shadows and lighting to emphasize contours
- photos are also subject to a compression effect, for instance, when taking a shot down the fairway with a telephoto lens
To use Oakmont as an illustration (only one of those I've experienced personally :(), I doubt anyone would call Oakmont rumpled, but to my eye, at least, it does not appear as smoothed out as many modern courses. That could just be my bias, as I strongly dislike how smoothed out many modern courses seem to be.
Just my $0.02.
-
Thanks Eric!
-
For my money, the best ones there are Wolf Point and Goodwood, and perhaps Barnbougle Dunes.
The key to the rumple is that the mounds and ridges also have mounds and ridges on them! Kind of like having a Starbucks opening up inside a Starbucks! The Rarity Point is not, IMHO, rumpled. It is a series of nearly symetrical man made ridges that are too smooth to earn that label.
For the mowing perfectionists out there, the Goodwood shot shows some minor mowing problems. Not enough to sway me against it, mind you.
I gotta ask....is Goodwood really the name of that course or is someone pulling my.....
-
Jeff - yes, (this) Goodwood is in Canada, and it's a new course developed by Gordon Stollery, the owner of Angus Glen, and designed by British architect Martin Ebert.
Martin first showed me fully grassed pictures of the place fully three years ago. Robert Thompson http://www.ontgolf.ca/g4g/2009/03/20/random-notes-for-a-friday-goodwood-a-go-cypress-returns/ (http://www.ontgolf.ca/g4g/2009/03/20/random-notes-for-a-friday-goodwood-a-go-cypress-returns/) has more on the rather extended grow-in there.
Gordon Stollery provided some of the funds that were used to reconstruct the Askernish course in Scotland... a place that is also not short of rumple!
-
Adam,
Thanks. Well, leave it to a Brit to have really studied rumple and put it in well.
It is just very hard to do well. Not only does the gca have to have a method to avoid regularity of mound/ridge/earthform placement, he then has to find a way to get the shaper out of the same mentality. So many times if you compliment a shaper on something, you come back to find he has repeated it, hoping for another compliment!
Not only do you need to put random nicks and cuts and mounds in existing ridges, you need to put random nicks and cuts in randomly placed ridges to get that effect. AND, each nick and scallop must be slightly different from the others as well.
-
Nobody on overwatered fairways :(
In my part of the world , midwest USA, there is NO ground game. Every course is overwatered to the point of silliness. 90% of the members are clueless and think green equals good shape.
Mike,
Make the trip up to Marquette to play Greywalls if you are looking for an exception to your rule.
Brad