Faces on potraits, greens, and other such things

[George Pazin]

This morning I found myself at a local branch of the DMV, waiting to get my license photo taken. Being the golf obsessed geek that I am, I thought of the old quote about greens being to golf what faces are to portraits.

Having a relatively undistinguished face myself, I started thinking about the statement. Many folks have some particular feature that stands out, but how many have multiple standout features?

How about multiple features that might not work individually, but in concert create an undeniable beauty? Look at Julia Roberts' face - that gigantic mouth by itself might actually be frightening, but it damn well works on her face!

Can you sum up a favorite green with a few short thoughts?

If you can, is that a good thing or bad thing? Maybe both, maybe neither?

Just some random ideas from waiting in line at the DMV.

P.S. There were no Julia Robertses at the DMV today.

[Joe Hancock]

George,

I always had you pegged as a guy who was smart beyond my understanding. Sensible to a fault. Studied in history, and able to communicate with the common folk too.

But, now I know you're weird. I think I could get along with you just fine.

Let's see.....a facial description? A bald head, with a chiseled chin. Deep eye sockets with light eyes embedded. Well groomed, shaven and nose hairs present, but under control.

Wait....was I describing Kingsley #9, or my old girlfriend from school?

Joe

[Bob Jenkins]

Joe,

Was it not you who said on this site that you loved to pick up and smell your divots?

[Joe Hancock]

Joe,

Was it not you who said on this site that you loved to pick up and smell your divots?

 

What's your point?

Joe

[Bob Jenkins]

Joe,

Do not stand in line at the DMV. Makes you strange.

To respond to George, how about teenagers resembling aerated greens or greens with too much make up? Is that the kind of thing you were thinking of?

No I am feeling strange.

[C. Squier]

The short hole at Yeamans Hall.

Cute little hobbit creature with a dent in its head.  

Love the hole, not too sure it translates to a portrait very well.

[George Pazin]

Okay, I guess I wasn't very clear with my opening remarks.

I wasn't trying to say greens look like faces. The old quote was to imply, I believe, the relative importance of greens to golf courses - i.e. they are as important to a golf course as the face is to a portrait.

When I thought about the license photo, I tried to think of some distinguishing feature of the photo. This also came up the other day when I was talking to my sister about a caricature she had drawn of her daughter. It didn't really look like her at all, not even a caricature of her. I came to the conclusion that it was because she didn't have a particularly distinguishing feature that an artist could seize on.

Sometimes you look at someone and think, man, that guy's got a big nose, or that girl has huge eyes. A friend of mine who I worked with in NYC looked like Howdy Doody with gigantic eyelashes.

So that's kind of what I mean - can you sum up a green with a few short sentences or thoughts?

Pete Dye summed up a redan as follows: You take a table, turn it horizontally on a 45 degree, and then tilt it away from you.

I have short thoughts on all 18 greens at Oakmont: first green is a dramatic fallaway green. Second green is angled and slopes dramatically toward the golfer. Third green is like shaving the top off of a hill.

So can you summarize a famous green thusly? Is it a good thing if you can?

My own humble opinion is that many of the courses I've played have such undistinguished greens that I can't even remember them, let alone summarize them.

Then you have greens that are primarily bumpy, such as the famed Maxwell rolls. Do they defy summarizing completely?

And do certain multiple features tend to work well together? Maybe a big interior bump doesn't work so well on a really pitched green, or maybe a back bump defeats the whole purpose of a fallaway green - or maybe it saves it!

I don't know, just seemed kinda interesting - and yeah, maybe a little weird, too, Joe!

[JESII]

George,

How about the second green at Pine Valley as golf's equivalent of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel...just simply too much to comprehend in one look...

[TEPaul]

"I wasn't trying to say greens look like faces. The old quote was to imply, I believe, the relative importance of greens to golf courses - i.e. they are as important to a golf course as the face is to a portrait."


Good, because I was beginning to worry one of the next posts was going to be some guy anthropomorphizing some putting green somewhere and telling us how it turned him on like the wicked face of some lanky brunette in a William Powell, Myrna Loy movie.

[Jay Flemma]

The 16th green at Black Mesa is the face of an alien.

I'm having trouble finding the thread, but we discussed that earlier.  Baxter and Eddie Peck both laughed sheepishly and agreed.

[Pat Brockwell]

The 16th at Black Mesa only shows the alien's face early in the morning from late August to early May, when the sun is not too far north.  Camel Rock, viewed from a certain angle by a southbound traveller on US285 looks like ET.  Just a coincidence, or are we witnessing a custody battle over our planet?

[Mark Studer]

George-I think CB Macdonald was stressing the importance of the design of the putting surfaces...the Quote from his 1928 book:"The right length of holes can always be adopted; after that the character of the course depends upon the building of the putting-greens. Putting-greens to a golf course are what the face is to a portrait. The clothes the subject wears, the background, whether scenery or whether draperies- are simply accessories; the face tells  the story and determines the character and quality of the portrait-whether it is good or bad. So it is in golf; you can always build a putting-green. Teeing-grounds, hazards, the fairway, rough,etc., are accessories."   I agree that the putting greens are the most important design element and most memorable.  Maybe an oakmont bias.   Maybe you too, George?

[Kalen Braley]

Talking about greens, the wildest one I've ever seen wasn't even an official green.

Its the putting green at Pacific Dunes.  I don't even know how to describe it other than its the wickedest green I've ever seen.  After putting on that during warmups, me thought I was in for a long day.  Thankfully the greens on the course weren't as evil as that one...

[George Pazin]

George-I think CB Macdonald was stressing the importance of the design of the putting surfaces...the Quote from his 1928 book:"The right length of holes can always be adopted; after that the character of the course depends upon the building of the putting-greens. Putting-greens to a golf course are what the face is to a portrait. The clothes the subject wears, the background, whether scenery or whether draperies- are simply accessories; the face tells  the story and determines the character and quality of the portrait-whether it is good or bad. So it is in golf; you can always build a putting-green. Teeing-grounds, hazards, the fairway, rough,etc., are accessories."   I agree that the putting greens are the most important design element and most memorable.  Maybe an oakmont bias.   Maybe you too, George?

Guilty as charged.

Thanks for providing the full quote, it's one of my favorites (I can't believe I didn't remember it was CBM).

[Jeff_Brauer]

George,

I had forgotten that it was CBM as well. If I would have guessed, I would have said Tilly or Colt.

That said, I wonder if that quote sort of sums up his fondness for Template holes?  It wouldn't be hard to distinguish greens from one another going into a design saying I will have one road hole green, one short, one redan, one punchbowl, etc.

That in fact might be better than trying to mold all 18 greens with the natural contours of a site with similar topo all over, no?  At least, it has advantages in making each green/hole stand out.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

Macdonald also writes that if he has nothing else to suggest contours in his greens he will make them appear natural by sprinkling a few pebbles on the plan at random, and building his undulations where they fall.  We'll do that for at least one hole at Old Macdonald.

Maxwell's great 15th green at Crystal Downs looks like it was done in that manner.

[George Pazin]

Thanks Jeff & Tom for the input.

How often do you consciously put contours in greens, versus working with existing contours?

Do you think someone like a Maxwell was being more random with his rolls, or that they were more consciously designed?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

The random scatter method also works for landscaping.....and also displays my contention that the old guys put a lot less contour thought in than some here presume they did when attributing greatness to those old greens.  That says that basically, if you have a gently rolling green that you will randomly create good putting surfaces.

There are times when I think that a conscious design - say tilting the green to the left to punish a bail out right with a severe downhill putt - is the way to go to get coherent strategy, but most greens, I just do those gentle rolls throughout.

George,

I think Maxwell more or less consciously planned his contours.  Those who knew his work, categorized his greens as 1, 2, 3, or 4 "mounders" and there aren't too many ways you can arrange those on a 6000 sf green.  There does seem to be a repetitive pattern in the Maxwell greens I have seen, and the mounds or "poofs" as Coore calls them are of similar size.  Random location should probably be accompanied by random or at least varying height differences.

As to working with existing contours, no, except for the general drainage pattern, because the surface is usually built and built up, but also leveled if too steep, etc.  Basically, most greens you see are built, so the contours are "designed" rather than found, but I suspect there are a few notable exceptions.