[Steve Burrows]

This term seems to nauseate me.  The reason, it appears, is that some designers with whom I have worked focus on it to an extent that they sometimes become consumed with what a green CANNOT be, all but ignoring the possibilities of what it COULD be.  Intriguing internal contours soften to banality, while bold tie-in's from outside a green may become tiny humps of minimal interest.

I can appreciate the necessity for creating pin-"able" locations on a green, which may affect, among many things: labor hours during construction, as well as cut-and-fill expenditures; after construction, the daily variety of course set-up, which in turn affects soil compaction issues; during play, the relative speed of the greens.  

But, does it need to be such a heavy focus?  And, perhaps the first question might be, does any one else see this same issue that I see?

[Bob_Huntley]

Steve,

I mentioned this just a couple of days ago. I see more and more greens of considerable size, with the possibility that only two or three places thereon would it be possible to stop the ball near the hole.

I think an architect should place some emphasis on this point.

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve,

I'd agree with you.

But, I think you have to differentiate between the mind sets of the developers.

Is it a private course, does the owner want it to be unique, fun, yet challenging, or, does he want it to be "member friendly" to the ultimate degree ?

I would imagine that the owner/developer's selection of the specific architect would be his first step in attaining his goal.

Next, I would think that the O/D would communicate his vision of the finished product and the ultimate user to the architect.

When I think of the 1st green at NGLA, it has very few pinnable "areas".   Most are confied to mini-bowls, the top of the spine or the mid-front of the sloping green.  Yet, it works brilliantly within the context of the hole.

So, why aren't greens like # 1 being designed and built ?

Speed limits
Traffic limitations ?
Limitations on USGA structured greens ?
Reluctance on the part of the O/D-architect
A combination of the above.

For whatever the reasons, there seems to be a trend away from unique or extreme design at clubs where other than a single individual or small group of individuals want to create other than a private golf course.

Wild Horse may be different, but, I don't recall severe undulations.

[tonyt]

A compromise still has to be made Steve.

The archie who designs the green the coolest way they want (without getting hyped up over the number of hole locations) may still have to tweak the green to include some anyway at the end. No matter how cool a green is, you can't build one if you can't put a pin anywhere, or only in one or two small spots.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Steve,

Yes, what a green can't be sometimes becomes the focus of design. As I often say, though, its not only not nice to fool mother nature, its not possible either.  Therefore, the number of pin locations needs to be tailored to the expected play of the course.  I design mostly high play public courses, or ones that we hope are high play.  You can be a bit less stringent at high end private clubs expecting only 12K rounds per year, obviously!

It takes 21 days on average for the cup and 3-4' radius where the feet of all 200-250 golfers on a weekend day tread to heal from the beating.  In good growth weather, or on low play days (probably 50 players or less, although I don't know exactly what that number might be) recovery might be quicker. On private courses, I might plan for as low as 12 distinct cup locations (6 day of play times 2 weeks). On public courses, I usually plan for 24 distinct cup locations, just in case a few prove unpopular - 4 each on a 2 wide by 3 deep grid - which does start to limit the areas where you can do extra contours of any kind on an average size green.
 
Somewhere on my cybergolf series I did the math, but that comes out to about 600 sf and a minum size green comes out to be about 4000 sf.  With more contours, there is in reality, much more unuseable area, such as not putting pins near the edge, on tiers or steeper slopes, etc. but much can be accomodated on a 6000 sf or larger green.  I once described here how a six inch knob in the middle of an otherwise good cup setting are takes out gobs of useable cup space.

Pat,

See above. It is traffic pure and simple when it happens, or dispersing same.  The USGA spec has no limitations that would prevent more contours.  Owner/developer reluctance might - if they are concerned with speed of play, again mostly confined to public courses.  And with greater speeds, there is a reluctance to put a pin too near a tier, knob, etc. since its harder to stop a putt at a pin guarded by those.  I think good players complain about those kind of pin settings far more than average ones.

Lastly, the sad part is that most golfers don't really want the course to cost them strokes. If the Owner/GCA are reluctant, it may be that they are reluctant to accept inevitable criticisms.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Brauer,

I've reflected on the traffic issue and would ask this question:

Why does a cup need to be changed every day of the week ?

I understand the rationale on weekends, but, let's take monday, when most clubs are closed. tuesdays, which are usually ladies days, wednesdays and thursdays, which usually have lighter play during the season.

Why can't the cup on Sunday remain on monday ?

Why not change the cup on tuesday and leave it for wednesday and thursday, usually low traffic days, and then change it on friday, saturday and sunday during season ?

I've noticed that a few clubs are now doing this and that it seems to work.

The only ones complaining are the people who play everyday.
To them I say, "you play golf every day, that should be your biggest problem."

With respect to one of your comments, I agree, I think owners have bought into the issue of "fairness".
The problem is, the complainers are the most vocal.
The ones who like the course rarely say a thing.
And, complainers seek to blame outside influences, course set up or the architecture for their shortcomings.

One dictator whom I know personally, suggested more lessons to a member who complained of their inability to handle a specific feature.

Scoring failures aren't the golf course's fault.
If a hole is cut close to a tier or ridge, it's the golers duty to avoid putting themselves in a position of interfacing with the worst part of that feature.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick, From my own post:

"In good growth weather, or on low play days (probably 50 players or less, although I don't know exactly what that number might be) recovery might be quicker. On private courses, I might plan for as low as 12 distinct cup locations (6 day of play times 2 weeks). "

I guess a club that had less than 50 players (or whatever number their greens could easily handle) could leave the cup in the same location for two straight days, rather than move them to new locations every day, but back to the same location quicker.  I know several clubs that leave championship tee markers in place for several days, but they might only see a few rounds a day.

It seems like putting quality would suffer the second day more in the latter scenario, which is what most members don't like.   I also suspect that they would not like playing twice in a row to the same pins, but agree that this is a lesser problem.

The supers could answer better, but I recall that cup setting was often left as a lower skilled worker task.  It may be in many cases that it is easier for a super to make the change every day call rather than have an employee start making value judgments perhaps incorrectly as to what the members might expect.

[Joe Hancock]

Jeff and others,

First, is that "21 Day recovery period" something from the USGA? The ASGCA? I don't buy into it, regardless. I base that on my own experience and maitenance regimes. Drier, firmer greens just don't get beat up like a wussified green. Yes, "wussified" is my word, and it's trademarked.

I have pins changed every other day. No one asks for it to happen with more frequency, and my greens don't suffer from it. I use a very experienced individual to "complete the task". (That's my version of "Git 'er Done", from my upcoming White Collar Comedy Tour.....also trademarked. (There will be window decals of said slogan available for those who wish to adorn the back window of their BMW)). He is instructed to use any part of the green he sees fit, without the aid of some pro shop produced pin sheet, etc. There is one green that I even allow pin placements as close as 6 feet to the collar, and he doesn't disappoint.

Joe

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joe,

Its a number I have heard from supers.  Certainly ASGCA has not put out a number like that. Doubtful that USGA has, although next to GCSAA, it would be logical.

How many rounds do you get per day?  I see you are a modestly feed golf course.  Perhaps your golfers don't expect perfect conditions around the cup.  Some clubs and high end fee courses do.

As I hinted, 21 may be conservative, but we do have to consider what happens when the busiest season equates to slower growing conditions.  And, we can't be sure how any future super may be forced to water at the hands of his owner or greens committee.  

Its not that it makes it impossible to maintain greens, it just makes it incrementally more difficult, IMHO.

[Joe Hancock]

Jeff,

As long as it's a scientific and logical conclusion rather than a CYA design philosophy, I'm OK with it.

Joe

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joe,

As discussed in another thread recently, we usually have a super on site during construction. I usually follow his/her lead.  Some think 5-6 general areas, often with as few as two pins each is enough.  Others want more.  So, typically, the grow in super does have some effect on how the final greens look. Obviously, we love working with ones that allow us to push our green designs to the limit.

[Donnie Beck]

When I think of the 1st green at NGLA, it has very few pinnable "areas".   Most are confied to mini-bowls, the top of the spine or the mid-front of the sloping green.  Yet, it works brilliantly within the context of the hole.

The 1st at NGLA and Yale are perfect examples of what I refer to as greens within greens. You have several flat pinable areas with sever undulation around them. These are my favorite type of greens. I think C&C built some wonderful greens within greens at Friar's Head. I don't know why more architects aren't building them.

[TEPaul]

Steve:

I don't really see this as an unsolvable problem provided it's dealt with intelligently between architect and those that must maintain the golf course in the future.

Matter of fact, I tend to look at it as a great opportunity to create some real interest and fun on a golf course.

But to do that effectively a number of things must be known and probably agreed upon going into construction.

One is the maximum green speed a club is going to maintain. The other is the degree of fall and the extent (in length or square footage) of the degree of fall. This new digatal device that calculates degree of fall can be a real help with this.

Given those two basic factors one should be able to accurately calculate the amount of ball runout from anywhere to anywhere that will be pinnable.

Of course all this brings up a number of other basic philosophies such as is it necessary to be able to get the ball close to pinnable space from various areas off the green or even on the green.

This whole concept of "greens within at green" is pretty interesting for set ups for particularly good players. If nothing else it most certainly is highly strategic in the context of approach shots to greens.

The only real downside I can see to this whole subject is it may fundamentally force architects to make greens bigger than some do now.

[Tim Liddy]

I have been told the PGA Tour likes to have 40 feet of depth before it will use a hole location, unless it is a very short golf hole.  Width may vary.

[TEPaul]

Perhaps one of the biggest impediments to really interesting and challenging greens is something that's apparently snuck up on all of us with such gradualness that we may've become almost totally unaware of it in perhaps the last half to last three quarters of a century or more. It probably began to enter our thinking and collective mentality maybe mostly subconsciously.

I believe it entered our collective mentality when the entire notion of "par" was first actually defined, perhaps by the R&A/USGA which states;

"Par is the score an expert golfer would be expected to make for a given hole. Par means play without flukes under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two strokes on the putting green."

Just think about that---eg "allowing two strokes on the putting green".

Since putting is an element of the game that takes no strength, obviously most all players came to almost expect greens to be such that they almost constitutionally DESERVED to two putt all greens or be given the opportunity to. It may've become even more insidious than that. It has gotten to the point where most all golfers EXPECT that there must be a way to get their first putt close to the hole from any point on any green.

Is this two putt perception really necessary and has it been one of golf's greatest drawbacks for a longer time than we may care to consider?

The entire concept of real "greens within a green" is that if you manage to get yourself in the wrong part of some greens your ability to get the ball close to some pins is physically nil and the best you can expect is to sink a longish second putt.

Who has a problem with that in some situations, and if they don't can you see what that definition of "par" may've done to complicate the issue?

Furthermore, particularly for good players it is impossible to deny that the "greens within a green" concept and the effect of it explained above just may be one of the highest forms of "strategic" golf.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have been told the PGA Tour likes to have 40 feet of depth before it will use a hole location, unless it is a very short golf hole.  Width may vary.

Tim,

Do you think that's because the PGA Tour is in the "Entertainment" business today, with National TV exposure every week ?

If events weren't televised would course set ups be different ?

If events were match play would course set ups be different ?

[Tim Liddy]

Pat,

I do not know, but I would guess they get many complaints form the players (architects ) if the depth is not sufficient to receive the shot required. Remember the inmates run the asylum on the PGA Tour.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()