[BCrosby]

The second in a series on simple, cheap, maintainable design features that should used more often.

Pat's thread on "rolls" in greens and watching the Open last week made me think again about how much micro contours matter. Little features, below the scale of any contour map, can make a huge difference.

At Troon, little humps and swales, none of them involving more than a foot or so of elevation change, caused drives to bounce in unexpected ways and left golfers with uncomfortable stances for approach shots. A standard part of UK links courses.

Likewise Pat's little "rolls" in greens. The little mound at the front of the 8th green at ANGC. The little mound in front of the 1st green at Old Marsh. The little levels within levels at the 1st and 10th greens at Yale.

These "little" contour features can make or break a hole. They can lift a hole out of mediocrity. The good news is that they are cheap to install, easy to maintain and don't require any additional real estate. The bad news is that they require on site attention to details and, dare I say, some imagination.

Why don't we see more of this? Where does it say that contouring must always form a perfect sine wave?

In the end, what is most suprising about Pat's thread on "rolls" is that that sort of feature is so uncommon. At least in the US. It shouldn't be.

What US holes have especially good micro contours?

Bob


   

[George Pazin]

I think these rolls really make a golf course more interesting - but I think a lot of golfers are more fixated on the fairness issue. "How come I got a lousy lie/stance, when my ball is in the fairway?"

In my limited experience, it seems like modern courses tend to be more smoothed out. I thought that this was the case at Paa Ko Ridge last fall (but not with Black Mesa), but others disagreed, so maybe I just didn't notice them.

It's always amazing to me to see the contours on the Open Championship courses, as well as the many many course photos that are posted from GB&I.

I've always thought Bandon looked a bit smoothed out, at least relative to its stated goal of being modeled after the great Scottish links courses. Is this the case?

Lehigh Country Club has just enough micro contour to keep things interesting, as well as a lot of macro contour. Oakmont has a good bit of both micro and macro contour. Fox Chapel seems to have a lot of macro contour, but less micro.

[Michael Dugger]

I fully agree with the premise Mr. Crosby has laid down.

Furthermore, if these little rolls and what not are an important feature that make a golf course more interesting, why don't we see more of them???

The answer is that modern design tools destroy 'em!!!

I need to cite but one example.  

SANDPINES.

I cringe when imagining what inherent rolls and dips use to exist on that piece of land.  Instead of massaging these features out of the land, they raped it, shaped it and grassed it.  Dug a big hole in the middle and filled it with water.

Tom Doak has mentioned numerous times the lengths they went to to preserve the subtle dips and folds at Pac Dunes, such as the fairway at #16.  You cannot preserve this stuff when rolling the D-8 through!!  It takes smaller equipment pulling less abusive implements.  

[ForkaB]

I love these features too, but I wonder how feasible it is to maintain them unless you have soil that drains REALLY well (i.e linksland).  Pacific Dunes may be one of the very few pieces of land in hte USA that allows this, but even there I am not 100% sure, given some of the mucky low bits I encountered when there 3 years ago (e.g. to right of the 16th green).

[A_Clay_Man]

They can even be smaller than Bob, illustrated.

These were the subtle features I was trying to convey to Pat, in a diatribe about narrow fairways surrounded by thick rough. A majority of the courses that cover thier "little features", no matter how big, cover-up an interesting element for the shot maker to figure.

At Pacific Grove it was speculated that the lack of fairway aeration for at least a decade, caused the turf to have slight little ripples, maybe a 18-24 inches apart at their apex, with an elevation change of less than 3 inches. (That's a complete guess) I assure, those three inches mattered. Whether it was the downslope or up, it effected the shot.

David Toms lay-up on that par 4, in the playoff with Lefty a few years back, was dictated by the slight downslope his ball was on, thus making carrying the water, problematic.

George- Ken is know for having been rather meticulous with his fairway rolls and cants.

Pete Dyes CCoD's first, has a dimple plagued fairway. I find it rather lunar looking, but essential for a golf course to be considered great.

I suppose one or two flat spots would be acceptable, but no more than that.

[Tom_Doak]

Small-scale contouring in fairways is the product of either great natural terrain, or shapers who are interested in golf [and usually on the architect's payroll].

You don't have to have sandy ground to include such fairway rolls, you just have to pay attention to the surface drainage.  Even the best shapers sometimes fall in love with their little bumps and leave a pocket by accident.

By contrast, many architects and contractors don't want features like this because they don't want to take a chance of screwing up and making a drainage problem.  Modern contractors like to polish fairways so smooth that you'll never hit a bump on your golf cart.

[Patrick_Mucci]

BCrosby,

I've found Hidden Creek's greens to be subtle to the point of beguiling.  The large contours are easy to spot and play, the subtle features are causing me fits.

It may be exacerbated by my poor eyesight, especially on overcast days, but the surprising roll of the ball tells me that I missed detecting and interpreting the subtle contours.

On tee shots I'm not skilled enough to see subtle rolls, bumps or slopes at 230 yards out, even with good vision.

Adam Clayman,

Your subtle features were at the perimeter of the playing area, in the roughs, and as such have a diminished impact on the play of the game, especially with the more aerial nature of tee shots and the resulting softer landing and diminished influence of the of the ground due to technology.

MDugger,

Could you cite exactly where those dips and rolls existed at Sandpines ?  Or, are you speculating, based on your predisposition ?

Secondly, where should the retention resevoir have been built ?

[Doug_Feeney]

Bob,

You mentioned the 1st at Old Marsh earlier, and as I went through the holes in my mind I realized that Pete Dye used these small mounds throughout the course.  (Save #5 for another thread please) I can think of interesting mounds on nearly every hole, although I understand that a lot of the St. Augustine rough covering them has been changed to bermuda.

#11 however has some fairly severe mounding on the right side of the fairway.  As other threads deal with strategy and width of fairways, I realized this was an interesting concept.  Challenge the marsh on the left and draw a more level lie, play away from the water and deal with the mounds.  Granted the unique fairway drainage at Old Marsh helps, but I'm sure this could be achieved at other locations.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Doug Feeney,

I think the unique drainage system at Old Marsh is the primary, if not the sole reason for the fairway undulations.

What is interesting is the reason for the perimeter mounds.
Were they created to block views, contain balls, frame holes and features or for some other purpose.

I'd be interested to find out the reason for their existance.

On most holes, the closer you are to the water/swamp the flatter the lies, and I think that's because the surface water will run off into them.  Whereas fairways further removed from their edge can't have the water directed across the entire fairway to the water/swamp.  Hence the creative inverse drainage system.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()