I wrote this for Golf Course Industry in 2008. Will draw a few catcalls from some, I presume. But, the main message is, mounds do have their uses.
I will also note that the problems I saw with perimeter mounding on lower budget courses was that the irrigation simply didn't reach the far side. Like anything else, the details must match the concept to make it work.
In defense of the mound
Golf course mounds have always been around. I see what appear to be “built” mounds even at the Old Course. Donald Ross included a chapter in “Golf Has Never Failed Me” called “Solid Mound Work.” But, modern golf course architects expanded earthmoving as artwork compared to their predecessors, until the last few years, when they have fallen out of favor faster than white after Labor Day.
Owners and golfers are tired of “90’s style” golf course mounds and they are vilified now because of over and misuse. Even I am tired of them and have become a reformed mound-a-holic,
Believe it or not, Golden Age architects used mounds similarly to modern architects - to support bunkers and frame greens. They built then at smaller scales with horses and scoops, giving them subtle little slopes that looked natural and artistic. Time has helped mounds “season” as tree planting and changing grass lines keep them from looking as artificial.
After World War II, mechanized earthmoving evolved and so did mounds – they got bigger and more prolific. But, they looked more repetitive and less natural, for many reasons:
• Paper Designed mounds related too strictly to greens or fairways, typically fitting repetitively on most inside mowing curves, rather than following more random patterns.
• Philosophy. With bulldozers, the land was putty in our hands, and mounds were built to stand out as manmade, not blend in as natural.
• Repetition. No golf course architect or shaper is as varied as nature. If a course has hundreds of mounds, many start looking alike. The tendency is to build mounds of similar height and slope no matter how hard we try to emulate natural contours. Even when a green site has a gentle side slope, often, the backing mounds are built to one height, rather than having the highest mounds on the higher natural side of the green
• Steepness. When economics got tougher, saving fill and construction cost by building steeper slopes. Robert Trent Jones and others built 5-7 to 1 slope, which looked natural in rolling terrain. Later, in an effort to get higher and more dramatic, mounds are often built at 3:1slopes – the maximum slope most mowers can handle – or even steeper on “Scottish Links” courses.
• No “Feathered Slopes”. Even steeper slopes can look good, if the toe of slope ties more naturally into natural grade at 6:1 or greater, even if the bulk of the mound is fairly steep, and many golf course architects lost sight of this.
However, mounds can be built to look good, and they do have many practical visual, strategic and speed of play uses:
• Creating a sense of “enclosure” on fairways and frames for greens to defined spaces. Trees do this, but on open land, mounds and ridges separate holes more cheaply and immediately than immature plantings.
• Holding approach shots without sufficient back spin near the green, a problem for average players. And, with faster greens and flatter slopes, those shots roll out even further, making small backing mounds even more necessary.
• Encouraging good players to play more aggressively at back pins.
• Containing Shots on the fairway or “turn” doglegs left or right
• Artificially create a “valley” fairway which is always a comfortable shot
• Helping with distance judgment
• Creating variation in fairway landing areas and lies, especially in landing zones beyond 300 yards where building bunkers for the small percentage of long hitters isn’t justified.
• Testing the short game around greens
• Creating shadow patterns for aesthetics
• Most golf course architects use these fairway mounds Adjacent to fairways, they can do many of the same things:
• Screen objectionable views (like the maintenance area or unsightly off site land uses)
• Provide safety from adjacent fairways or practice fairways
• Give landscape plantings a good “head start” on achieving a desirable height
• Show off landscape plantings, by allowing back plantings to be higher than front ones
• Hide Cart Paths (although care must be taken to leave wide access routes)
• Create drainage
While mounds solve some problems, they create others:
• They take longer and are more dangerous in some cases to mow
• They require more irrigation and/or often dry out
• While they contain moderately off line tee shots, wild shots clearing the mounds have a blind approach and potential safety problems
• When hot approach shots do land wide of the mounds, they result in a difficult pitch.
Hopefully, mounds will find favor again, at least if used where they serve one or more valuable purposes and are built to fit the site, rather than being the be-all end-all of design. They deserve a better reputation than they currently have.