[Lou_Duran]

My home course's rebuilt greens are prime candidates for this potential remedy.  Many of the greens have so much slope on the back third, and often on one side, that considerably less than 50% of the surface is "cuppable" by Tour standards.  The Plummer designed course is private, but for profit, so the budget is always meager.

The original greens were similar to those at Colonial, Southern Hills, Preston Trail, and Champions-Cypress (though much smaller) with some slope, but not heavily countoured.  The renovated greens were originally seeded with bent, but have been regrassed with Champions.  I believe that they were built to USGA specs.  Are there more examples out there of clubs that have tried the approaches described on the USGA website?  Could bermuda tolerate these more limited procedures better than bent?

BTW, I too found Pat Brockwell's comments interesting, though perhaps a bit self-serving.  For Black Mesa, keeping the greens under 10' will be a necessity.  With all that's going on internally as well as from the surrounds, I just don't know how this will be accomplished without really, really slow uphill shots to compensate for the downslopes.  Perhaps with experience one can become more comfortable playing the ball on the ground on slower, heavily countoured greens, but I found myself hitting more lob shots at BM to pin positions guarded by various slopes (e.g. Huckaby's 3.5 par 5 15th (?) hole).  Personally, I would rather get a chip or a putt started on a chosen line than having to slam it into the back of the hole.  But, to each his own.   I will be interested to see if Pat does not have to implement aspects of these "how to- but not recommended" techniques at BM.

[ChasLawler]

What's odd is that Chevy Chase Club was completely renovated in 1998 by Art Hills. In reality it's a totally new course, with very little Ross left in it (if there really ever was). From what I understand the routing was about the only thing Hills remotely followed. The 11th green along with the rest of them, were all completely rebuilt, and I'd assume that in 1998 they would have been constructed to USGA specs.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Should Friar's Head soften their 7th and 9th greens, two of the best greens on the golf course ??  

Can you think of other greens with more slope and contour then the 7th green at Friar's Head and the 1st, 3rd and 6th greens at NGLA ?

I realize that the micro climate may help maintain these greens at slightly higher speeds, but the very thought of softening them in the name of higher speeds would be unconscionable, wouldn't you agree ?

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

Patrick Mucci:

No, and I have seen it attempted many, many times.
You can always tell by conflicting angles or different grasses, especially on the putting surface and apron.

TEPaul:

I think that is what the USGA should do.
They should propose a method for push ups and another method for USGA spec greens.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Go back a page and answer the question proposed about the 9th green at Manufacturers. Would you soften it or would you take the whole course back to about 7-8 on the stimpmeter or would you just leave it alone and have players continue to suck the ball from the very back right off the front of the green and well down into the fairway. And don't say this question is a hypothetical because it isn't.

Manny's #9 green may not even be as sloped or contoured as some sections of some greens at NGLA or even Friar's but on the latter two at least they're generally designed to hold the ball somewhere on those greens in most cases! With Manny's 9th green once the ball comes off that back tier the whole green below it is too sloped to allow the ball to stop anywhere on the green.

So what I'm saying Pat, is it doesn't really matter if NGLA or Firar's have some sections of some greens that're more sloped or contoured than Manny's #9. The point is the way those greens at NGLA and Friar's are designed they work much better in the overall than Manny's #9. Manny's #9 in the overall has been a problem for a number of years now.

So again, answer the question--what would you do about Manufacturers #9 if the entire green isn't working well for approaching or putting?

[Pat Brockwell]

So Lou- Who better to serve? Pat.

[George Pazin]

Obviously all this stuff needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis, but I would say there is a difference between softening the contours of one green to accomodate consistent speed throughout the course (though I am unfamiliar with the course & hole in question) and wholesale softening of contours throughout a course to accomodate generally faster greens.

How would the rest of the course play stimping 8 and how bad would #9 be stimping 9+? If the answers to those 2 questions are bad and really bad, then I'd probably advocate softening one green.

What about increasing contour on the other 17 holes?!? Obviously kidding, but I wonder if others have been softened so that the 9th sticks out.

If they threaten to soften some of the greens at Oakmont, I might have to switch sides, become an enviro nazi & stake myself to one of the greens.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dan Kelly -

Since we started the Quarry with the same superintendent as at the Legend course, and he consistently kept the green speeds at about 8.5-9 over the last five years there, I felt pretty comfortable designing for that.  I had the budget to increase green size, meaning there could be a lot of interior spaces between large, long ridges.  As you know, there are some greens there, like 12 and 18 where your putt could start out well over 45 degrees to the hole, maybe more!  I love that stuff, and since the course is a resort, where average players will see it once a year and want something a bit different, and the greens on the first course are small and mostly pretty flat, I think it works.

I love your comment the day we played - "I think the $75 greens fee would be fair for putting alone!"  

Although Lou is kind enough to not mention the club, or rebuidling architect by name, he is referring to GSW - which I remodelled and where I am also brave enough to be a member!

One of my design criteria, from the former (and well respected) superintendent, was to put enough slope into the greens to "prevent" the members from demanding superfast greens.  At that time, bent was the popular choice in Dallas, as the new 1019-1020, G-2 varieties were heavily touted by the seed companies, and ultra dwarfs were not developed.  He wanted to keep the bent at a higher cut to aid its survivability.

As Lou suggests, it didn't work.  The "no fast green" demand lasted until the first men's club championship.  Green speed went to 10 plus, golfers de-greened putts, and the greens also suffered.  When they switched to Champions, they could have considered some flattening, but in reality, I think some contours got increased.  For example, the ninth green used to have three distinct tiers, but now the slopes carry well into each other, reducing cup area.

For the record, I do enjoy putting those greens, and there are holes where the need to get below the pin is parmount.  The 17th is Redanish, and I missed just right, leaving a chip that was ticklish to say the least, last time I played.  Also for the record, I haven't really softened the contours in my designs a lot.  

If any of you go play Cowboys or my newly renovated Indian Creek course, you know what I mean!  But, I hear about it.  "Mr. Brauer, I couldn't make a putt from that area above the hole, and thats not fair!"

Why is it that that concept is great for any old course, but just downright silly for a newer one?

Nonetheless, my next few courses will have flatter contours - for no other reason than getting typecast.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I'd lower green speeds and see how it works for a season or two.  Then evaluate the issue at that time.

I'd also keep them as firm as possible at the same time.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Thanks for the answer. Lowering the greenspeeds at Manny's to about 7-8 which is probably even lower than would be necessary to accomodate #9 would be a guttsy move but I admire the recommendation.

Manny's isn't going to do that, though, and I assume that #9 has probably already been recontoured or softened. Ron Forse has the restoration job there now although it hasn't started yet I don't think. Unfortunately another green (#17) is probably slated to be softened too. That one will be an interesting job as basically it's just a big back to front slope so how to go about softening that one will be interesting. Since both #9 and #17 are built into back to front hillsides I'd assume what they'll do is just raise the fronts of those two greens up some. Anyone knows when that's done, though, it can compromise the run-up approach option or even make coming back off the green more severe. That might not be a big issue on #17 as it's a shortish hole but #9 is a very reachable short par 5.

[George Pazin]

But, I hear about it.  "Mr. Brauer, I couldn't make a putt from that area above the hole, and thats not fair!"
...
Nonetheless, my next few courses will have flatter contours - for no other reason than getting typecast.

Re the first one, I hope you either ignore the guy or punch him in the nose! Just direct him to the board & we'll educate him.

Re the second, say it ain't so! That's like worrying about being typecast as too smart or too good. I can think of a lot worse ways to be typecast.

[Dunlop_White]

I know I am entering this thread late, but I just read the article twice and have a couple of comments to make.

1. THE APPROACHES: When softening greens, either the back of the green is lowered or the front of the green is raised. Sometimes both. As I well know, too often the tie-ins between these altered heights and their surrounding approaches are not integrated. They no longer blend or meld together unless special attention is given to the surrounding contours of the approaches. Often the approaches must be graded out as far as 50 to 75 feet in order to tie everything back together. The USGA article mentioned this, but it must be stressed, because problems lie far beyond the softened green contours, irrespective of whether they turn out right or wrong.

2. GROUND GAME: Any time you raise a green-front as much as 18 inches to soften its back-to-front slope, it has a resounding effect on the run -up shot. Basically, ground game options are compromised.

3. INEXACT SCIENCE: it is easy to soften the slopes, the ridges and large humps, but you'll never ever pick up the little pockets and small bubbles between these slopes, ridges, and large humps which truly comprise the character of your classic green.

All said, this method seems like a preferable alternative to total reconstruction, but clubs must realize the risks involved. The USGA article did not mention the inherent dangers listed above. Therefore,  it sounded more like an endorsement to me.
Nevertheless, I'm glad to know about it!

Dunlop

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dunlop White,

That was my impression, and that's why I initiated the thread.

Endorsements don't have to be blatant, they can be subtle, but they're endorsements nonetheless.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()