Quote from: JES II on September 11, 2006, 09:53:03 AM

I just do not see how this "green within green" concept presents a smaller target. On the green is usually going to be easier than off it. What is the most expensive part of a golf course to maintain acre for acre? If it is the greens (which I suspect, but really do not know) why would we be looking to increase costs without increasing the return. Unless, that is, you are looking to make the game easier.

JES II,

Have you ever played the 3rd and 6th green at NGLA ?

Being on the green is no guarantee that you'll get down in two or three.

I see the transition areas in this "green within green" concept as expensive unuseable space. Can we find a better solution?


Not really.

If wear and tear causes a green to have TLC & $ poured into it, it's more expensive than maintaining a larger green.

Quote from: JES II on September 11, 2006, 05:35:51 PM

I have not played NGLA but my point is this;

it is easier to get down in two, three or whatever from the areas you referrence when they are prepared as green than if prepared as fairway.

I don't know that I agree with that.
Being in the fairway allows one to use Lob-Wedges or 6-irons or any other club of choice depending upon the situation.

In addition, the orientation of the green may favor the short ball, or ball that's missed the green versus a ball that's already on the green, but, in a highly unfavorable location.

A visit to NGLA would help you visualize and understand the predicaments caused by being on the right green, but, in the wrong place..

Being short or in a fairway, where possible, on # 1, # 3 or # 6 doesn't make it more difficult to get up and down as compared with being in other sectors of the green.

Re-read my post please, I said it is easier to get down in two, three or whatever from a specific area if it is green cut as opposed to fairway. I am leaning on the greater margin for error characteristics of a putter as opposed to some chipping implement. I do not need to see NGLA to visualize how an easy chip is easier than a difficult putt. Virtually every green I have ever seen has this same characteristic you referrence, it is not solely illustrated at NGLA. Take those tough to putt from areas on #1, #3 or #6 and putt a lob wedge in someone's hands and tell me it's not more difficult than with a putter.[/color]

These bigger greens designed as "greens within greens" cost more to maintain every day than a green with the same amount of pinnable space but no unuseable transition areas.

I don't agree with that either.

Pat, I'm not concerned whether or not you agree, it's a matter of common sense. Whatever amount of square footage on a green surface that is not useable for hole locations because it is a steeply banked transition area still needs to be maintained at the same cost per foot as the pinnable space. So now you end up with X% of green space that is not useable for hole locations and the overall effect would be better with long flowing contours that present the same challenges as your "greens within greens" from an accuracy demand perspective but do so a bit better and a bit cheaper.[/color]

And, even if it was true, the differential in cost is nominal, with no substantive impact on the budget. You may say that, but in a time when every dollar counts I'd say that comment is irresponsible. Whatever area of internal greenspace that is devoted to transitioning from one "green within green" to another "green within green" is wasted money.[/color]

You're suggesting that costs dictate flat, easily maintainable greens, which would squeeze out the disinctive character of the golf course, that which seperates it from other golf courses.

No I am not, I am dictating continuity on the putting surface. Long flowing contours that create interest from the fairway, and even back to the tee, and help drain water off the green instead of creating the small collection areas so popular on USGA greens.[/color]

There are reasons that CBM and others designed unique, functional greens within a green.  For challenge, interest, fun and strategic purposes.

My opinion is that from a cost/benefit perspective the size of the greens needed to do what you're talking about are far costlier than alternative designs.

Identify the elements that would make maintainance "FAR" costlier ?

Size alone Pat. And it does matter. [/color]

There are none.

And, you've conjured up a false image with respect to the concept of greens within a green.  The 1st hole at NGLA is probably 5,000 sq/ft or less, yet, there must be five or six micro greens within the overall green.

Pat, If you are talking about a green having distinct small segments of a green, that is fine. My impression of the "green within a green" technique is to make it very challenging to make par from one of these sections to another. To say that #1 at National has 5 or 6 micro greens within its 5,000 sq/ft gives me the impression of something different.

Is there a "green within green" green at some course we have both played so I can really understand what you mean. Pine Valley perhaps?[/color]

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on September 11, 2006, 09:24:07 PM

Quote from: JES II on September 11, 2006, 05:35:51 PM

Re-read my post please, I said it is easier to get down in two, three or whatever from a specific area if it is green cut as opposed to fairway.

That would depend upon the orientation and configuration of the green and the location of both balls.

From the back of # 1 at NGLA it's doubtful that you'll get down in fewer strokes to a front pin location than from the fronting fairway.


I am leaning on the greater margin for error characteristics of a putter as opposed to some chipping implement. I do not need to see NGLA to visualize how an easy chip is easier than a difficult putt. Virtually every green I have ever seen has this same characteristic you referrence, it is not solely illustrated at NGLA. Take those tough to putt from areas on #1, #3 or #6 and putt a lob wedge in someone's hands and tell me it's not more difficult than with a putter.[/color]

It's not, because you can get spin on the wedge.
Before the back left bowl on # 1 was altered, no approaching putt could hold the green, but, a wedge with spin could get to, and remain within the bowl.


Pat, I'm not concerned whether or not you agree, it's a matter of common sense.

No, it's not.
It's convoluted thinking contrary to the principle of creating greens with character.

Whatever amount of square footage on a green surface that is not useable for hole locations because it is a steeply banked transition area still needs to be maintained at the same cost per foot as the pinnable space. So now you end up with X% of green space that is not useable for hole locations

So what ?
Under your convoluted thinking every area of a green must be pinnable in order to cost justify it's existance.  Ergo, you favor boring, uninteresting greens that have moderate slopes.
The inherent purpose of a green isn't to have every square inch pinnable.


and the overall effect would be better with long flowing contours that present the same challenges as your "greens within greens" from an accuracy demand perspective but do so a bit better and a bit cheaper.[/b]

But, they don't present the same challenge, and you've contradicted yourself.  The "Long Flowing Contours" you seek require large greens, which as you said, are more expensive to maintain.

Your taste in design is large boring greens with little in the way of contour.

My taste in greens is for the 1st, 7th and 9th at Friar's Head, # 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16 at NGLA.  The 13th at Somerset Hills, the 8th and others at Hidden Creek, Plainfield, Winged Foot, etc., etc..  

And, even if it was true, the differential in cost is nominal, with no substantive impact on the budget. You may say that, but in a time when every dollar counts I'd say that comment is irresponsible.

Then you have a lot to learn about maintainance costs.

What you don't understand is that by creating large boring greens without contour, the golfer's interest will wane, causing play to be reduced, along with revenues.  That cycle usually leads to the demise of the golf course.


Whatever area of internal greenspace that is devoted to transitioning from one "green within green" to another "green within green" is wasted money.[/color]

That may be the dumbest statement I've ever heard on this site, and I've heard some really, really dumb ones.

Please, think about what you just said.

You would squeeze the distinctive life out of every green, and stifle the creativity of every architect to save a nominal amount of money.

With 40+ years of serving on green committees and as a green chairman I"m qualified to draw that financial conclusion.

You're suggesting that costs dictate flat, easily maintainable greens, which would squeeze out the disinctive character of the golf course, that which seperates it from other golf courses.


No I am not,

I am dictating continuity on the putting surface.

That's absurd, putting surfaces have inherent continuity.

Long flowing contours that create interest from the fairway, and even back to the tee, and help drain water off the green instead of creating the small collection areas so popular on USGA greens.[/color]

You really don't know what you're talking about.

USGA greens are extremely difficult to construct with pronounced contours.  It's rare when it's attempted.

As to drainage, pitch and perc removes water and highly contoured greens drain very well.

"Long flowing contours require large greens, which as you stated, are expensive.  You can't have it both ways.

As to interest from the fairway, and "even back to the tee", are you telling me that you can detect contour from a quarter of a mile away from a green ?

Do you feel that the vast majority of golfers study the green on a par 4 and par 5 from the tee ?

Would you also name me five courses with small collection areas that are so popular on their USGA greens.  I'd appreciate it if you could cite the greens as well.

There are reasons that CBM and others designed unique, functional greens within a green.  For challenge, interest, fun and strategic purposes.[/b]

My opinion is that from a cost/benefit perspective the size of the greens needed to do what you're talking about are far costlier than alternative designs.

Identify the elements that would make maintainance "FAR" costlier ?

Size alone Pat. And it does matter. [/color]

But you've stated that you want, that you prefer, "Long flowing contours".  That feature inherently demands a large green, the very thing you're against.  You're confused or conflicted.

And, you don't need a large green in order to create pronounced contours, that's just one of the flaws in your position.

There are none.

And, you've conjured up a false image with respect to the concept of greens within a green.  The 1st hole at NGLA is probably 5,000 sq/ft or less, yet, there must be five or six micro greens within the overall green.

Pat, If you are talking about a green having distinct small segments of a green, that is fine. My impression of the "green within a green" technique is to make it very challenging to make par from one of these sections to another. To say that #1 at National has 5 or 6 micro greens within its 5,000 sq/ft gives me the impression of something different.

That's why I suggested that you try to see it in order to better understand the concept.

Is there a "green within green" green at some course we have both played so I can really understand what you mean. Pine Valley perhaps?[/color]

Have you played Hidden Creek ?

If not, would you like to play Hidden Creek ?

If so, would you like to bring that Cretin who lives down the street from you, TEPaul ?