[Bob Montle]

Is it true that in Scotland the pin positions are usually placed where the green is relatively flat within a 5ft circle centered on the pin?    I had noticed one day that despite the wild contours on the greens at least the ball would roll relatively straight near the cup.  I mentioned that in the clubhouse and the local pro said that was by design and is common in Scotland.

[Tom_Doak]

Is it true that in Scotland the pin positions are usually placed where the green is relatively flat within a 5ft circle centered on the pin?    I had noticed one day that despite the wild contours on the greens at least the ball would roll relatively straight near the cup.  I mentioned that in the clubhouse and the local pro said that was by design and is common in Scotland.

That's not peculiar to Scotland.  American courses in general have more contour in greens than anywhere else, but even here, there are lots of people who advocate for the hole to be located in relatively flat spots.  And there are exceptions to the rule in Scotland, too.

[Thomas Dai]

Not much point in placing a pin in a spot where with a bit of wind the ball will move.
Atb

[Sean_A]

Is it true that in Scotland the pin positions are usually placed where the green is relatively flat within a 5ft circle centered on the pin?    I had noticed one day that despite the wild contours on the greens at least the ball would roll relatively straight near the cup.  I mentioned that in the clubhouse and the local pro said that was by design and is common in Scotland.

That's not peculiar to Scotland.  American courses in general have more contour in greens than anywhere else, but even here, there are lots of people who advocate for the hole to be located in relatively flat spots.  And there are exceptions to the rule in Scotland, too.

For handicapping purposes, the USGA recommends a 3 foot flat area for cups. 


Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom Doak,


I never heard about draining greens 2 or 3 ways in landscape architecture classes.  Architects like my mentor, and contractors like Wadsworth told me from day one that was a good idea.  (Along with never draining water in a bunker, slopes onto a green,  using any catch basin too close to the area you really need to drain, or letting overland flow cross a fairway, or letting water run more than about 250 feet (the distance it takes to concentrate from sheet flow to stream flow)


Over  the years, I have seen architects vary from those rules, and maybe they are successful, but when I think I should be able to do it, too, they never seem to work out in practice.  Whenever I drain all water off the front, including some surrounding mounds, the approach gets too wet.  Whenever I drain a major portion of the green towards the cart path side that golfers enter, drainage and poor turf becomes an issue, etc.  Say what you will, when I feel heat from the flame, I learn to back away.  Ditto with breaking what those from 1950-1980 learned and took as standard practice.


I understand the notion of questioning standard practice, but there are some landscape architects believing its time to reintroduce American Elm to their landscape pallets, believing the old guys didn't know what they were doing.  I believe they are short sighted.  It is always about drainage, drainage, drainage.


As noted, comparing current grading schemes to the old guys may or may not be a fair comparison.  Their greens were often smaller, there was less irrigation, etc.  On the other hand, they built topsoil greens vs. USGA sand, which may have leveled the total drainage amounts out.  Either way, did I mention drainage, drainage, drainage?

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:
The old guys believed in surface drainage, too.  That's why their greens were steeper! 


Some got to work on sand more than others, but the first guy I thought of in your neck of the woods, Perry Maxwell, tended to build crowned, back to front greens without obvious drainage collection points.  On reflection, you are right that the 3 directions mantra comes from golf construction sites, and not from college.  But of that list of "greens worth study" in the back of my first book, I don't think any of them were built by Wadsworth.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,


Agreed the old guys understood drainage for their times very well.  Seem to recall an old saying about Tillie's greens, something like "You can tell a Tillie, it always drains."  Obviously, the author of that realized not all were equally proficient.  I recall an early version of the World Atlas of Golf had a contour map of a Tilly green (I think 11th from Winged Foot) and by that time, I had visited Killian and Nugent, who mentioned the three way drainage.  (I had brought in a crude green plan, domed in the middle for drainage all ways, and was quickly schooled on why that was not a good idea......)  When I saw the Tilly green draining all of the front I was a bit surprised.  Thinking more, given he had length of green bunkers along both sides, front may have been the only place he could have gone in that illustration of his work, because I think even then they knew not to drain water over the top of and into a bunker.


Have seen some Ross green contour plans, like Pinehurst 18, and I think his drained two ways. 


Would guess Perry's drained two ways somewhere going between those mounds, but could be wrong, and maybe never 100% consistent. 


Wouldn't figure Wadsworth to have built any of the old greens you revere.  That said, while we all take inspiration from the best before our time in the biz, it is just as sincere a design effort to look at the exact problem you are facing and come up with a solution to that as it is to in any way copy something done before in a different situation. 


BTW, checked your list, and you missed a great scorecard oddity - three consecutive par 3 holes at Lake Geneva CC in WI.

[Tom_Doak]

BTW, checked your list, and you missed a great scorecard oddity - three consecutive par 3 holes at Lake Geneva CC in WI.

Never been there!

[Jeff_Brauer]

You would like it!

[Carl Rogers]

Why has there been no mention of soil types and their relationship to drainage?  Aren't they linked? 

Wouldn't poorer draining soils require a lot more robust and deliberate drainage, with great effect on the green complex design?

While better draining soils allow for a more casual set of options?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Carl,


There are.  But, so few sites have natural sand of quality you can use for greens construction, basically sand based greens, like USGA, California Method or some blend of the two predominate, at least for on green drainage.  But, you still need surface drainage on any green.  And, part of what Tom objects to, I think, is how that sometimes leads to "standardization" of grading concepts, making too many greens look alike.


As TD says, wouldn't it be great if there only courses built on sandy soils....and without cart paths!  Around the greens, I do think sandy soils give you a little better range of options.  That said, and assuming you also have the standard cart paths and typical golfer circulation patterns, I would still tend to drain away from easily predicted high traffic areas. 


My tendency on the two swale patterns is to drain less of the green forward to the approach if the second swale drains away from the path (because those approaches tend to get wet, which we don't want, of course) but if the path is on the low side of the green, meaning some of it drains towards the major entry point, then I drain more of the green off the front (or front left, front right, etc.) having found drainage concentrations in walk up areas to be problematical as well.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()