Renovating Classic Greens in the Modern Era, thoughts...

[David_Tepper]

Jeff Warne -

Your comments are absolutely spot on. Nice job.

DT

[jeffwarne]

Jeff Warne -

Your comments are absolutely spot on. Nice job.

DT

Thanks,
Our course will have at least  two members.

[Tom_Doak]

Tim is correct this is easy. Using a Trimble GPS with the newest software and the newest version of AutoCAD Civil 3D. The GPS unit is accurate within an inch. Upload the existing elevations you mapped with the device. In the ACAD Civil raise the lowest points to the new elevation you want and lower the highest points the elevation you want...bam, softened green. In the field, just like Tim said, restake all of the points mapped with the new and old elevations and move the dirt or sand accordingly. Float it and do a seamless tie-in. It really is easy. Push-up piece of cake. USGA, a little more complicated. But nonetheless pretty easy stuff.

The value of doing it this way is the benefit of mapping out the contours to what you want exactly on the computer with the ability to calculate all of the slope percentages you need to see and can then move dirt more efficiently in the field. No move measure, move measure, move measure. Very important if the scenario includes a USGA green. Layers make it complicated and costly. Needs to be done right the first time with minimum time down for the clientele.

Ian:

Terrific.  Now, just tell me what are the greatest greens ever built with this method, and we'll compare those to all the great greens at Pine Valley and Augusta National and Winged Foot and the rest, which were built in the field, and not by a map and a GPS.

[Kalen Braley]

Tim is correct this is easy. Using a Trimble GPS with the newest software and the newest version of AutoCAD Civil 3D. The GPS unit is accurate within an inch. Upload the existing elevations you mapped with the device. In the ACAD Civil raise the lowest points to the new elevation you want and lower the highest points the elevation you want...bam, softened green. In the field, just like Tim said, restake all of the points mapped with the new and old elevations and move the dirt or sand accordingly. Float it and do a seamless tie-in. It really is easy. Push-up piece of cake. USGA, a little more complicated. But nonetheless pretty easy stuff.

The value of doing it this way is the benefit of mapping out the contours to what you want exactly on the computer with the ability to calculate all of the slope percentages you need to see and can then move dirt more efficiently in the field. No move measure, move measure, move measure. Very important if the scenario includes a USGA green. Layers make it complicated and costly. Needs to be done right the first time with minimum time down for the clientele.

Ian:

Terrific.  Now, just tell me what are the greatest greens ever built with this method, and we'll compare those to all the great greens at Pine Valley and Augusta National and Winged Foot and the rest, which were built in the field, and not by a map and a GPS.

Hmmm, a few modern courses:

Were the greens at Chambers built in the field?

The ones at Wine Valley were built on the fly and they turned out fantastic.  Ditto for RCCC.

Palouse Ridge's greens are a massive disappointment.

[Tom_Doak]

Hmmm, a few modern courses:

Were the greens at Chambers built in the field?

The ones at Wine Valley were built on the fly and they turned out fantastic.  Ditto for RCCC.

Kalen:

I don't know if the greens at Chambers Bay were built in the field or not.  Are they truly great greens?  I don't remember them well enough to say that they are.

I do know that every green ever built by Pete Dye, Bill Coore, myself, Gil Hanse, and Mike DeVries was built on site, and not by GPS.  The same is true of every green built before 1990-ish, before GPS technology existed.    I can't vouch for any other designers, one way or the other, but I think I've covered the vast majority of great greens on my side of the ledger.

[Kalen Braley]

Hmmm, a few modern courses:

Were the greens at Chambers built in the field?

The ones at Wine Valley were built on the fly and they turned out fantastic.  Ditto for RCCC.

Kalen:

I don't know if the greens at Chambers Bay were built in the field or not.  Are they truly great greens?  I don't remember them well enough to say that they are.

I do know that every green ever built by Pete Dye, Bill Coore, myself, Gil Hanse, and Mike DeVries was built on site, and not by GPS.  The same is true of every green built before 1990-ish, before GPS technology existed.    I can't vouch for any other designers, one way or the other, but I think I've covered the vast majority of great greens on my side of the ledger.

Tom,

I really loved the greens at Chambers Bay.  Greens like 7, 11, 12, 18 were just fantastic, but I don't know if I'm qualified enough to judge or not if they belong in the great category. I know I wouldn't mind playing them or that course everyday.

[JNagle]

GPS can be useful to a point.  But Tom is 100% correct that it cannot and does not replace the on-site supervision and modifications needed during construction.  I can think of a number of instances where modifications HAD to be made in the field based on unforeseen circumstances (rock ledges, water lines - not irrigation, electric lines and other unknowns) that required immediate attention and creativity to modify the design and still maintain a certain appearance and characteristics.  If someone has relied heavily on the computer modeling they will not have a true grasp of the situation.  If the designer is the one designing the slopes, undulations, features and subtleties they will be much more adapt at making the necessary changes.  We often say a plan is just a plan and its time to throw it away once we start construction.  

When we must recreate some greens we do request a laser-scan of the green down to .10 inches so we really have an understanding of the existing green and its complexities/subtleties.  Only in one instance have we used the GPS plan for the installation of the green and that was only for a major feature within the center of the green (Tavistock 16th green).  The rest of the green was designed in the office and modified in the field.

Technology should never take the place of a qualified designer in the field.

[JNagle]

Forgot to add.  When building a USGA green there is no cost change if the proposed green changes in its vertical profile only when its outline (and overall square footage) changes.  The quantity of stone and sand is unchanged if elevations are adjusted in the field.

[Ian Larson]

Hmmm, a few modern courses:

Were the greens at Chambers built in the field?

The ones at Wine Valley were built on the fly and they turned out fantastic.  Ditto for RCCC.

Kalen:

I don't know if the greens at Chambers Bay were built in the field or not.  Are they truly great greens?  I don't remember them well enough to say that they are.

I do know that every green ever built by Pete Dye, Bill Coore, myself, Gil Hanse, and Mike DeVries was built on site, and not by GPS.  The same is true of every green built before 1990-ish, before GPS technology existed.    I can't vouch for any other designers, one way or the other, but I think I've covered the vast majority of great greens on my side of the ledger.

Tom,

I really loved the greens at Chambers Bay.  Greens like 7, 11, 12, 18 were just fantastic, but I don't know if I'm qualified enough to judge or not if they belong in the great category. I know I wouldn't mind playing them or that course everyday.

Guys,

This isn't about replacing anything in the field with a computer. And I thought this thread was about softening CLASSIC greens, not the making of a GREAT green. There is nothing wrong with mapping a classic green and it's surrounds, producing a 3D image to present to membership to give them a before and after visual, having approximate slope values before any dirt is moved and making sure that the general undulations are maintained but softened with the utmost of intentions to be historically sympathetic to the greens beginnings. And there's no reason the same guy on the field moving dirt cant be the same guy GPSing and AutoCADing. And yes, at the end of the day a plan is just a plan. But if a membership is on the fence about softening their greens a bit because they value the original design, being able to show them what they'll get before spending money and moving dirt is valuable in selling the project. But there are those that just don't like technology. Horses for courses I suppose.


And Jim,

There is a substantial cost to changing the contours of a USGA green beyond what you mentioned. To do it right, even without changing square footage, changing surface contours means you need to change the subsurface contours of the layers with it. They work the way they do and are the most successful when the layers are parallel in depth. If not the perched water table in the root zone will differ across the green causing inconsistent water volumes throughout the root zone.

[Mike Nuzzo]

In the ACAD Civil raise the lowest points to the new elevation you want and lower the highest points the elevation you want...bam, softened green.

Saying in the ACAD Civil is like saying you can find it in the Google Chrome or in the Microsoft Word.
In the ACAD Civil MODEL ...

Ian -
Why wouldn't you just tell your shaper to lower the high points and raise the low points?
It would be a hell of a lot easier and cheaper.

I don't think it would work in either case.
If it did they certainly wouldn't need me, Tom, the other Ian or any other architect.

Cheers

[Dale Jackson]

Wow, there are some very good posts on this thread from very qualified people and they are at times quite opposed to one another.  It was this dichotomy that, in part, prompted my original post about the technical feasibility of keeping the original contours of classic, well designed greens but softening the slopes and contours to allow for increased green speeds.

Imagine the reservations of a decision maker at a golf club with members demanding a reduction in the severity of the course's greens.  There is a general acknowledgement that a softening would be beneficial but, based on what I read in this thread, no guarantee that the classic features of an original green could be retained when such a project is undertaken.

My reluctance to support any such project, however well-intentioned, has grown as this thread has developed.

[Ian Larson]

Wow, there are some very good posts on this thread from very qualified people and they are at times quite opposed to one another.  It was this dichotomy that, in part, prompted my original post about the technical feasibility of keeping the original contours of classic, well designed greens but softening the slopes and contours to allow for increased green speeds.

Imagine the reservations of a decision maker at a golf club with members demanding a reduction in the severity of the course's greens.  There is a general acknowledgement that a softening would be beneficial but, based on what I read in this thread, no guarantee that the classic features of an original green could be retained when such a project is undertaken.

My reluctance to support any such project, however well-intentioned, at club contemplating such a project is considerably reduced.

My point exactly. The customers aren't the Tom Doaks or Mike Nuzzos. It's the common member who doesn't know shit from shinola and just wants to know his investment is being cared for with it's historical significance. It's his money, his passion. Not somebody saying "trust me I know what I'm doing". Any tool that you can use that will help the average member become comfortable and supportive of a project because it can illustrate the significance, value and efficiency before the pen hits the checkbook is a very valuable and powerful tool these days.

And to repeat myself ONCE again, it's not to replace ANY traditional construction methods. It's to assist, compliment and make it more efficient. Nothing more nothing less. A majority of decision making members who want to feel comfortable with their decisions look at this as something as a valuable tool.

[Ian Larson]

And the members / golf course architecture afficianados who value something like GPS and utilize it will be the winners 100 years from now who can bring solid data to the table when it comes to debating the historical integrity of their courses design details. Imagine if GPS existed during the times that some of the most heated discussions on GCA occurred. But instead we have a contingent that is too stubborn to map the present In order to preserve the past for the future.

[Ian Larson]

In the ACAD Civil raise the lowest points to the new elevation you want and lower the highest points the elevation you want...bam, softened green.

Saying in the ACAD Civil is like saying you can find it in the Google Chrome or in the Microsoft Word.
In the ACAD Civil MODEL ...

Ian -
Why wouldn't you just tell your shaper to lower the high points and raise the low points?
It would be a hell of a lot easier and cheaper.

I don't think it would work in either case.
If it did they certainly wouldn't need me, Tom, the other Ian or any other architect.

Cheers

Really Mike?

You want to try and exploit the process to be that simple to attempt to prove your point? You and I both know it's a very important and complex process that requires men in the field. I'm not fighting you, I'm just saying technology can be a tool to enrich and enhance the age old art and profession. Comments like that take away from the discussion.

[Tom_Doak]

My point exactly. The customers aren't the Tom Doaks or Mike Nuzzos. It's the common member who doesn't know shit from shinola and just wants to know his investment is being cared for with it's historical significance. It's his money, his passion. Not somebody saying "trust me I know what I'm doing". Any tool that you can use that will help the average member become comfortable and supportive of a project because it can illustrate the significance, value and efficiency before the pen hits the checkbook is a very valuable and powerful tool these days.

And to repeat myself ONCE again, it's not to replace ANY traditional construction methods. It's to assist, compliment and make it more efficient. Nothing more nothing less. A majority of decision making members who want to feel comfortable with their decisions look at this as something as a valuable tool.

But that's what we object to, Ian.  These CAD maps give members the illusion that their greens can be precisely renovated and all of the contours meticulously preserved, without having an architect and a really good shaper watching over the details.  I don't think that's what you are saying, is it?

Worse yet, they give the impression that just changing some of the numbers is a simple way to soften the greens.  On that subject, I'll just say that I have never seen a steep back-to-front green successfully softened by raising up the front.  It may fix putting from the back to the front, but it does so at the expense of ruining the approach to the green and chipping from the front.

I agree with you that it would be great if we had accurate contours of MacKenzie's greens at Sitwell Park, or many of the old masters' greens before sand topdressing started changing them all.  We could quickly enter the data and laugh at the people who insist that greens can't have more than 2.25% slope to be playable in the modern era.  [I have good contour maps of the greens at Augusta and Crystal Downs and Royal Melbourne and The National Golf Links of America, and will just share that there are greens on each course where there is NO slope below 2.25%.]  The problem is, the geniuses who are so sure about their numbers would then insist on changing the greens of all those courses to conform to their numbers!  So, I would prefer that this data stay in the hands of people who understand what to do with it.

The Stimpmeter was just a tool, too.  It's the tool that got us into this mess.

[JNagle]

Worse yet, they give the impression that just changing some of the numbers is a simple way to soften the greens.  On that subject, I'll just say that I have never seen a steep back-to-front green successfully softened by raising up the front.  It may fix putting from the back to the front, but it does so at the expense of ruining the approach to the green and chipping from the front.

A great point Tom.  We have seen a number of poor modifications because a club was unwilling to extend the necessary earthworks well beyond the approach.  If you raise the front you just can't steepen the approach.  If so, you have compromised the hole.  Any green that is too steep from back to front requires much more than just a raising of the front.  The club must condiser the lowering of the rear of the green and sometimes not touching the rear perimeter earthworks in order to retain the visibility of the back of the green so many ODG's put in.

The following are a couple of examples of how we have used the GPS (it really is to be termed laser-scanning) for the reconstruction of various greens. 
     The 16th green at Tavistock C.C. (NJ) was a severely sloped par 3 playing over a pond and fronting bunkers.  The bunkers were originally very deep with grass faces.  Jones Sr. came in at some point and the bunkers evolved into a shallower sand flashed appearance.  The green had a large "buried elephant" in the center of the green which provided the club with the only available hole locations within the green.  The green was relatively narrow in depth and therefore a difficult green to putt, and hold a ball on.  The severity of the green made it overly difficult to play a recovery shot from the rear of the green.  The club stated that they loved the central feature and did not want to lose that element if the green was to be rebuilt.  The green was an original Alexander Findlay push-up green (if your in the area go study the Tavistock greens, they are pure genius).  The green is set on a knoll and was constructed upon a pocket of sand.  We discussed the possibility of reconstructing the green in a push-up manner but the club decided to go with a USGA spec.  Knowing the USGA spec requires the sub-grade nearly match the surface elevations of the putting surface we recommended the Club get a laser scan of the green and the central feature.  The contractor performed a scan and gathered 3600 points in and around the green.  When construction started we expanded and lowered the rear of the green (no use of the laser scan) and we raised the front.  We did not have to worry about the approach because of the fronting bunkers.  The laser scan was not used for the front of the green.  We did however, use the laser scan to duplicate the central "buried elephant".  This feature was put back in exactly as it had been.  I remember working with the shaper and discussing elevations  of a half-inch here or a half-inch there to get it precise.  The project was a succesful merging of standard practices with modern technology.

Fast forward to 2010 and 2011 where we rebuilt four greens at AW Tillinghasts' Alpine CC (NJ), three greens at Donald Ross' Springfield CC (OH) and the 18th at Tavistock.  The four greens at Alpine were USGA psec, the three at Springfield and one at Tavistock were all to be push-up.  The green at Tavistock was the expansion and reconstruction of the front 2/3's of an existing green.  Alpine and Tavistock both had a laser-scan of their greens performed down to a .10 of a foot.  We used these scans so we could pick up on the subtle breaks of the greens and recreate them as best we could withought utilizing the technology during the reconstruction.  The projects were a success.  The 10th at Alpine was challenging because we encountered unmovable rock and we had to redesign the green in the field.  The greens at Springfield were never laser scanned or even surveyed.  We worked with hand sketches and a digital level in the field with the periodic back up of a rod and transit.  The greens are fine.  As with anything, there are many ways to skin a cat.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,


Agree that the 2.25% rule is a bit softer than what my experience shows can be cuppable.  To me, the 2.25% is about where it goes from "3 ft putt can be aimed inside the hole, or on the Lip" to a bit uncomfortable, but not uncuppable.

Like you, I have studied contour maps from RM and other places.  In addition to your examples, I recall seeing the maps to LACCNorth, where Faz/Harbottle softened those greens - formerly 6% range, down to about 4% (obviously it varied a lot) Even at those green speeds (although when asked in front of members what the speeds were, Superintendent Bruce Williams said 12, but then winked, which I took to mean that they were really 11, but they fudged a bit for the members....maybe they raised the stimpmeter a bit to make them roll further than is warranted by the standard test?  So whoda thunkit, lying is the best green speed tool we have, but I digress)  

At any rate, they were difficult, but puttable at 4% slopes in the cupping areas.  Others opinions might vary, so in some respects, it may be a case of flattening to the lowest common denominater of members tastes if you have the option (full rebuild) or flattening to the lowest possible given existing contours.

In the USGA Journal, ASGCA member and occaisional contributer here, Jerry Lemons did some testing as to green slopes breaking them into okay, on the edge, and over the top (not his wording)  I think it can be accessed at ASGCA. org, too.  His research also shows that greens can be more that the 1.5% range many gca's use.

There are so many good people in the golf design/construction biz (sadly, probably too many right now) that I won't get into the debate as to who hires the shapers and finishers is better - it can be done well both ways.  As most know, I looked around and wondered just why I should get into that side of it when there were so many good ones out there already waiting to be hired to do a good job.

On the tech side, I have seen mistakes made by overly relying on tech, and I have seen mistakes made winging it in the field.  As noted the key is someone (actually many someones) looking at the final in the field, but I do believe the tech can give you a good start.

[Jason Goss]

The Stimpmeter was just a tool, too.  It's the tool that got us into this mess.
[/quote]

Well said. 

The Stimpmeter is the single worst "tool" ever introduced to the golfing public. 

The intended use was for superintendents to have a tool to check consistency from green to green,
NOT green speed from day to day or course to course. 

[JESII]

The stimpmeter is simply a tool...the guilt lies with the people who mismanage the risk/reward of making greens too fast to be affordably maintained...and they're everywhere.