[Michael J. Moss]

In the review of Pacific Dunes in the "Courses by Country" section, the author points out that on the "fallaway" 10th green "there are no insipid little mounds to 'frame' behind the green."

The author makes the same point in the review of Garden City. In describing the 15th green, the reader is asked to "Note the complete lack of artificial mounding or framing."

It is clear that the writer is not a fan of "framing," nor am I.

In certain architectural quarters, is framing still in vogue or has it run its course? Also, can someone please tell me how containment mounding actually frames a green. To me, they seem like safety nets put up to prevent a poorly struck shot from rolling off the back.

Unfortunately, the greens on my home course have been used as a repository for these "insipid little mounds" when last our course was renovated.  

[Brian_Gracely]

Framing mounds are still alive and well at courses built in conjunction with residential communities.  

On a few of the courses around me the mounding is not only an eye-sore, but the housing (and OB) are so close to the edges of the mounds that anything slightly off-line will catch the top or edge of the mound and go OB.  Doesn't make for very enjoyable golf.

The best interaction I've seen between golf-course and housing is at CC of NC, where you almost forget that there are houses back amongst the woods.  But most developments don't have the acreage to keep the houses that far away from the course  

[Gary_Nelson]

Do these framing mounds actually help players by deflecting their shots on the green?  Or, are they just a huge mound that gets in the way when the golfer misses the green by 20 yards?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Michael,

I posted some rationale for them a few weeks back, but unfortunatly, can't recall what thread they were on.....

They still have their place - some golf courses are designed to be golf factories, and many believe they hold shots in - not 20 yard misses, but narrower misses, and thereby speed up play.  I have never really stopped to figure out if they do, though.....

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Jeff is on point. However, I really have very little use for them. I hope they go away and never return.

[Michael J. Moss]

My feeling is that they have no business being on course, like our's, that was opened for play in 1918.

I don't think containment mounding was the thing back then.

But again, how do mounds "frame' a green?

[Mark_Fine]

Depending on the course, many are added as spectator mounds.  This is more common then you might think.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Moss,

Tillinghast thought that they were a valueable architectural feature and inserted them on many of his golf holes.

Those that dislike containment mounding should begin by criticizing Tillinghast, one of the first to use them in quantity.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
I guess I beg to differ with you about Tillinghast.  He definitely liked mounds and incorporated them in his designs but he surely didn't think of them as "containment mounding".  When he built mounds, he tried to blend them in with the surrounding contours (at least most of the time).  What Michael is talking about is something different.
Mark

[SPDB]

Didn't Raynor and MacD use greenside mounds excessively on the 14th(?) at SLCC?

[Andrew Summerell]

Framing a hole with mounds (or anything) tends to give perspective to the golfer. Paul Daley's vol. 2 book of essays has a great comparison of an unframed green, then another picture showing it framed. The difference is very noticable.

In alot of cases, unframed greens (especially when they take the form of a skyline green) are more uncomfortable to hit to, & therefore often more difficult, merely because of the doubt they place in the golfers mind.

I am not a fan of unnatural framing in any form, but I understand why it is sometimes used.

Andrew

[Tom_Doak]

Michael:

While there are no mounds behind the tenth green at Pacific Dunes, there is a huge dune to the right, and a smaller dune on the left, which help to define the green site.  [In fact, every single green site at Pacific Dunes is tied into a dune at the back or sides, and I am sure that's one of the reasons people think there are no weak holes.]

What we didn't do was to ruin the profile of the green against the ocean by creating an odd mound back there.  I thought I learned this from MacKenzie, but when I played Cypress Point this spring, I was struck by the artificial mounds which he planted behind the 12th and 17th greens when he could have had the green profiled against the ocean.  These mounds were quite large and clearly intended to provide a background besides the horizon of water.

I think what you are objecting to is not "framing," but smaller distracting mounds which architects are building to try and frame their holes.  These are a poor substitute for real topographic features to tie into.

Garden City is an interesting case ... I love how simple those greens are, but a lot of good players I know would object to the lack of definition if we did the same thing on a modern course.

[TEPaul]

Vis-a-vis what Tom Doak just said about some of the mounding or framing that appears behind some of the holes of CPC, it's interesting to compare and contrast how Raynor handled how the back profiles of his greens at Fishers Island were framed by the backdrop of the Long Island Sound! Holes #7,#9!!. #11, #13, #17 are notable.

I've often thought the great #16 at CPC would have been even better, or certainly more interesting, if Mackenzie had not used those big framing bunkers behind the green. They do define the green but I feel the hole would have been even better with minimal green definition. Those large bunkers on that breathtaking rocky promontory framed by the sea seem incongruous!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

I'm afraid you're wrong on that.

Tillinghast inserted mounds that do anything but blend into the surounding terrain.

A visit to Shackamaxon would provide you with evidence of mounds with no support from the surruounding topography.

Containment mounding may mean different things to different people.  I don't equate spectator mounds on stadium golf courses with containment mounding, others may.

Containment mounding doesn't have fixed specifications or fixed dimensions.  I believe it comes in many sizes and shapes.

Michael Moss would have to be more specific with respect to what he means by "containment mounding".

Does he mean, to contain the ball, the view, the hole ?

Tom Doak,

Doesn't that lack of definition help thwart precise play ?

The 10th green at Pacific Dunes seems like it's in a natural dell, how on earth could anyone classify the surrounds as containment or framing mounds ?

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
As I said, there are always exceptions in every architect's work.  Look at Tillie's mounding at Somerset Hills on #6.  But that is still not containment mounding and believe it or not, Tillie tried to make it look "natural".  Frankly I think he failed miserably in this case.  However, what Tillie did on most of his courses is nothing at all like what you might find on many of Rees Jones designs.  Rees is someone who loves containment mounding and has used it to extremes.  Tillie is not in that class with mounding.
Mark

[JohnV]

There is a course in central Oregon (Eagle Ridge I believe) where the architect copied the shape of the mountains behind the green in the containment mounds he built behind the green.  I though it really looks stupid but others I've spoken with liked it.

I can see building mounds to add challange to a hole that basically has nothing behind the green.  When they are built as a straight line or ridge around the back of the green rather than being of variable amplitude and frequency they tell me that the architect didn't think them through, but just said, lets put something behind the green to stop balls.

[Tim Taylor]

Probably the most glaring case of mound-itis I've ever noticed was on the Golden Horseshoe Green course, especially after playing the Gold Course earlier in the same morning. The Gold fits into, over, and across the hills and valleys so beautifully. Each fairway on the Green Course appears somewhat like a skateboard "half pipe" and most of the greens are mound-surrounded. It's quite a juxtaposition.

My question is this: when, and why, did it become necessary to frame holes?

TimT

[Mark_Fine]

Tim,
"Framing" kind of just happened as golf moved inland.  Though there are other ways to frame holes, once trees started showing up on courses, the concept of framing took hold.  
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

I would agree that there are degrees of containment and also differences in function that are all too often overlooked.

[Michael J. Moss]

Hey Patrick,

I tried to use the reviewer's language to describe the mounding behind most if not all of my home course's greens. I did insert "containment mounding" in the thread title and I can't find where the heck I read it!

I would describe what I see at my course as containment mounding because it stops a ball from rolling over a "fallaway" green. I don't get how they "frame" our greens.

As to Tillinghast's use of mounding behind greens to frame, I can speak with knowledge of Fenway's greens (1924). If you look at Fenway's profile in the "Courses by Country" section, every green pictured is without these framing mounds. They are true fallaway greens (or fall-away). They are pushed up, sloping back to front and the golfer has a real problem getting the ball up and then down after going over one. Fenway's short par-3 fourth is an exception, which is rimmed in the back of the green to impede balls from rolling over. It is certain death if you do.

My home course was originally built by Raynor, who was soon followed by Travis. After a "bunker renovation" project was completed in 1997, our course was blessed with these insipid little (and in many cases large!) mounds. Perhaps a little artistic licence was taken, but to my eye, I can't stand the look. Plus, doesn't it take some nerve for an architect to add his own look to a course built by two designers who weren't exactly hacks? Anyway, I still don't know how they "frame" the green.

This past Friday evening, I found myself outside of Albany, NY. I convinced my family to give me 15 minutes to take a quick look at the CC of Troy - a 1925 Travis design. Around dusk, I took a walk over to the 18th green which comes right back to the clubhouse and I'm glad I had my family's cooperation. What a great complex - somewhat reminiscent of Ross with collection areas for chipping or putting decisions, and green slopes which feed the slightly errant ball into collection bunkers. No containment mounding there.

I know I have to buy a decent digital camera to show the folks here exactly what I'm talking about. It's is on my list of things to do.

[John_McMillan]

I had a chance to walk some of Grand Cypress this spring.  I was particularly struck by the mounds behind 2 greens which seemed to protect lunching diners on the clubhouse patio from over-agressive shots played to these greens.  With a little research, I noticed that the clubhouse had been moved from its original location, and wondered if the mounds had been built to accomodate the new clubhouse location - to the detriment of play on the mounded holes.  Tom Doak showed me photos of the course in its condition close to opening - prior to the clubhouse move.  The mounds on these holes are there because, well, Jack Nicklaus likes to build mounds behind his greens.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Moss,

As I said, I think there are different functions and categories for containment mounding.

I think many of Tillinghast's containment mounds are to control the ball.

Others are to form a visual and/or acoustical barrier between holes or outside elements.

Still others can be the repository of debris or excess fill.

I think one needs to clarify or categorize what type of containment mounds they are discussing so that we're all on the same wavelength.

I too need to learn how to operate and integrate a digital camera with my computer

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()