Finally something I can jump in on amongst you illuminati of the links. I played Yeamans this summer with (need I say it) Ted Sturges and the square greens, along with the square tees were a subtle but pleasing feature of this understated yet grand layout. Perhaps for several reasons. Obviously on the flat coastal plain at the time moving mass quantities of dirt was extreme so i think this must have been a device to frame and present the idiosynchrocies of the green platform to those "reading" it from an approach shot. Together with the sqaure tees these square corners provid a unifying link between the tee and green all of which are further framed by groves of massive live oaks , columnar hollies and magnolias, and other semi evergreen trees at their peak in the non- summer months when the cludb would be most active. With all this somewhat large scale perspective going on these squared corners are great little touches that bring the main point of it all, the jar, into focus for us mere mortals. didin't help with your question but maybe some of this explains how this feature started.  

Certainly Tom Dunn and Old Tom Morris built more than their fair share of square greens in the 1800s. According to my hero Sir Guy Campbell, Willie Park bridged the gap from the stylized functional designs of the 19th century until golf's Golden Age. Park firmly believed greens should be of different shapes and sizes and Maidstone and Sunningdale exemplifed this new trend in architecture. Finally, by 1929, Tom Simpson was saying greens should never be formal in design and that pear-shaped in general was preferred.[Note:  David]

Square Greens:  In the "world" of Macdonald / Raynor the greens should be "squarish".  Chicago Golf has 90 degree SQUARE greens and I would think the greens at Yeamans (played it 2 weeks ago) were done like Chicago.  Can't remember seeing anyplace else where they are 90 degrees square - certainly not National or any old pictures of National.Pedrhaps Tom could give us some of his insight on Yeamans.

Exactly what are square greens? Does that mean that the green has four 90 degree corners, and four equal sides? How would the green at the 18th hole at the Old Course  be described? I started  thinking about geometry and forced shapes in golf course design. One of the features that I like most about the Old Course is the joining of the urban shape with the course. This forces a geometric shape into the game, and the game into the village. (it takes a golf course)Another example that comes to mind is the circle. At seminole, on the 18th hole, there is a bunker with a 10 ft diameter circle of grass. Nearby is a circular bunker 10 ft in diameter. Was that D Ross’s idea? Has anybody noticed that?

George,Didn't know you visited Yeamans recently.  What do you think of the place with her new set of greens?  I'm eager to hear you answer Ran's question as well.Also, as a set, I think the greens at Fox Chapel in Pittsburgh are among the most square I've seen.  Pretty neat set of Raynor greens, as a group.

George Bahto:       Thanks for the info on square greens and the Macdonald/Raynor info.         The reason I asked the question is my course, Gulph Mills G.C. in Philadephia , had a master plan done by Gil Hanse. We are very happy with the plan (Plan is restoration!!-work has not started). GeoffS thinks it is as good and comprenhesive a plan as he has seen. There is an excellent text supplement supporting Gil's thinking.            The course is 1916-1919 Donald Ross. Counting Gil, eight architects have been through the course from beginning to present-that is almost as many as I can find anywhere except, Pittsburgh Field Club, Augusta and maybe one or two others. Most of the architects were good ones (exception RTJ hole changes to provide for a practice range are weak and out of character). We particularly love our 4-5 Perry Maxwell holes and greens! The Ross origianals are 1-6 and 15-18. Of these many of the greens were square. The squareness of the pads in the back is obvious, not so obvious in the front as the greens meld nicely into the upslope approaches (original subtle false fronts??)       I've done a design evolution report using Victor Dallin aerials from the 20s and 30s and the complete Board minutes from the beginning of the club. There is mention in the minutes from 1925 of the club having seventeen of the greens "rebuilt" by Toomey and Flynn for $650. each. This work unfortunately preceded the first of the aerials so I don't know what the greens looked like previous to T & F's work.       My final question is; $650. was alot of money in 1925, how much work or alteration do you think T & L did? Do you think they might have changed the shapes and contours of the greens or just redid what was there from Ross (drainage problems, bad grass, whatever)? There are some good Toomey and Flynn course around here but I haven't noticed if any of their greens were ever squarish. If Dave Staebler reads this he may have some input from the evolution of Rolling Green.

George:Thanks for the info. The $650 was for the whole job, I think, but the club minutes are a little cryptic; just says seventeen greens were rebuilt by Flynn & Toomey (they got the name wrong) for $650 complete. Ron Forse was here but he didn't mention much about the total 90% corner greens; he was very interested in the squarish greens which had the "wild Flairs" on the corners. I will ask GeoffS about this after I read his new book.

Doug:

Of the many old classic courses I have seen, toured, studied and played, many have had at least 'squarish' putting surfaces.

I have a current project that has these squared-off surfaces and the club loves them (well now that they know how cool they are ...unfortunately, most of their characteristic shape and strategy has been lost, and they, like so many others around the country are now very rounded.  Fortunately though, through much education over the past few years, I have been able to show them the positive attributes of returning the square shapes.

Mark Fine and I are also working on a very interesting course, circa 1922 (by all accounts and research completed to date so far we believe it to be an Devereux Emmet course) that clearly had/has squared-off surfaces and we are recommending their return as well.  The amount of great usable surface lost over the years is huge and the original strategy makes the quality of the hole in many circumstances.  I love the old shapes and as we often talk about on this site; great strategic surfaces and green sites are where the fun is and where scoring is gained or lost

I seem to remember a while back, maybe a year...seeing some photos posted here on a course in the Chicago area that Forse (I think) returned the old squared-off surfaces.  The pictures were taken from overhead so you could see clearly the evolved round shapes versus the original and the amount of lost surface.  It was quite dramatic

Maybe someone who knows how to search this could repost those photos, I don't

Tom - As I hope you remember, every push up green site at Glen Ridge has been restored to the original Willie Park, Jr square shape.  Force et al. did a masterful job and with the expansions done in native turf (grown from cores) the surfaces are almost indecernable.  The membership cannot believe the many new and wonderful cupping positions that have been presented.

Tom Paul

In terms of Ross’s work, I worry you are over-thinking this a bit as fill pads in the early part of the century were typically put in a square fashion because of the process of hauling the earth with horses and scrapers, placing it in a pad for the green.  Not for artistic purpose but solely a function of how the earth was moved. After the earth was placed it would then be shaped by hand with shovels and rakes, which leaves the overall remaining square shape of the fill pad placed earlier by horses (especially in the back of the greens where the elevation of the fill pads was the greatest). Also, since greens were mowed with hand mowers the square shape would remain until the 1950’s when riding mowers were used and corners would become rounded over time. Then add irrigation in the 1960’s and the round green shape is reinforced on a square fill pad.

In terms on McDonald and Raynor, I think it is a bit more of a mixture, as a preference and as a construction process. What do you think?

Tim'
First off let me be clear, I know next to nothing about classic era golf course construction.
But, are you telling me they couldn't figure out how to use a horse and scraper to do a bit of finish shaping...that it all had to be done with shovels and rakes? Really?

And, it's easy to turn a bit with a hand mower...and as I understand it, the early riders sucked.

I don't know anything, but I'm guessing that if the greens were square it's because the guys who built 'em wanted 'em square.