[ForkaB]

JESII mentioned this concept on the Nicklaus-bashing thread in terms of Bill Coore's comment on Hidden Creek.  I think it is a very important idea which affects how we see and play golf courses.  I can confirm Jim's specific reference in that when I walked Friar's Head in late 2001, Ken Bakst pointed out to me a number of places where Bill C. had taken pains to preserve little natural humps and hollows, even on the "potato field" part of the course.

I have also always thought that one of the great charms of links golf has been the "imperfections" in the land that have been mowed over rather than plowed under.  The smooth sweeps and angles of most modern courses remind me more of industrial farming than a natural landscape.

I also think that it is not only the "pros" who don't like dodgy lies (e.g. a wee downslope on a micro-ridge when you have 220 to go, a slight sidehill lie which fights the preferred fade, the chip that you want to keep low but has to be hit from an uphill lie, etc., etc.).  Too many (probably 90+%) of the punters think this is not fair.  So, out come the D-9's after enough complaints to the Committee/Board.....

I know that C&C do think a lot about this issue (and maybe have the budgets/status to be able to "micro-undulate" at will).  How about the rest of the archies?  Is it possible/feasible/marketable to biuld a new course that looks "unfinished" to many if not most of your customers?

Thoughts?

[BCrosby]

Micro contours are a wonderful feature. But far too rare on US courses.

When they dynamited tree stumps from playing corridors when building Athes CC, they simply grassed over the craters (they didn't have much in the way of earth moving machines and a very limited budget). Those fairways are now full of wonderful micro contours.

It is beyond me why you see them so rarely on courses in the US. They are inexpensive to build (in fact cheaper than the alternatives), easy to maintain and add lots of interest and variety.

Go figure.

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

The fairway of the 13th hole at my home course in NJ has really wonderful and unique micro contours.

For 40 years I've been battling to preserve them.

Green committee after green committee wanted to smooth them out to afford players "better lies", or to make the fairway "fair".

Unfortunately, there's been a trend toward eliminating distinctive features that impact play and require brains and/or skill to navigate and/or execute.

Sadly, the trend here is for level LZ's.

[ForkaB]

Keep up the fight, Pat!

Do your fellow members think the Chrysler Building would look better if it didn't have all those gargoyles and humps and hollows?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich,

Do you know what's really interesting ?

The ilk of the people who want to level the fairways want to play the GCGC's, SH's, ANGC's, TOC's, PV's and NGLA's of the world, but, they want their course to be eminently "fair" with perfect lies and bunkers that deflect balls back toward the fairways for everyone.

When clubs have to publish rules that state:
no jeans, shirts must have collars and be tucked in, and hats must be worn with bills forward and not indoors, it tells you all you need to know about golfers and memberships today.

[wsmorrison]

I can think of man-made micro undulations on three US courses.  Two of the courses, Eagles Mere in upstate PA and Kittansett in downstate MA have undulations resulting from massive tree removal.  There are little hollows left from ground settling after the trees were removed.  This results in some random downhill and uphill lies that require some good ball striking to hit a good approach or second shot.  The third course is Newport Country Club where Revolutionary War (I think--maybe War of 1812?  My history is a bit lacking) campsites left rows of furrows where the many tents were pitched.  I thought these were from farming but was told it was due to military encampments.  Cool stuff.

[ForkaB]

Pat

I hear what you are saying in the 1st paragraph, but why is this primarily a problem in the USA?  Over here, if anybody tried to smooth out the runrigs or mini-sand dunes inthe fairways they'd be laughed out of town.

As for your secondparagraph, I think it is irrelevant to the question, or maybe even contraindicatory.  To me, people who don't like lumps in their fairways also don't like golfers who look like lumps (e.g. Tim Herron).

Wayne

Interesting.  Goes to show that some features which are natural were in fact made by that paragon of nature, man.

Shivas

Yup. Somehow they think that an extra 30 yards is "harder" than having to hit an approach off the side of a hillock.

[T_MacWood]

Rich
Excellent post. Modern golf design's stylized view of Nature too often does not include Nature's imperfections....those imperfections are what makes Nature interesting IMO. An architect's understanding and appreciation of those odd movements of the ground, makes it more likely he will be able to create similar features when the land lacks a certain umph. I'm glad you are finally on board, better late than never.

[JohnV]

Rich,

I like the term "Micro Undulations".  It is a term I've been looking for in thinking about things like this over the years.  I think that the concept and the lack of them in many modern courses can also be extended onto the green.  So many modern greens just have steep shelves between flat areas.  

While many of the older courses had basic back to front sloped greens, they also usually had lots of micro undulations in them that made them interesting and gave just enough of a non-sloped area that could be used for hole locations.

I wonder if micro undulations were always there or if they evolved over time as different areas settle at slightly different rates.

[Mike McGuire]

I wonder if modern construction equipment/techniques is partly the cause of a lack of micro undulations.

A dozer makes it easy to create a flat surface. Creating hillocks while conserving topsoil is a bit trickier.

[Michael Hayes]

My home course was built in 1924 on the site of an old orchard.  Over the years the site has settled very irregularily, resulting in many micro undulations and even a few of the macro variety.  Its really neat to see how in the summer when a ball hits the up slope of a "Kitsap Hole" and stops or hits the downslope and trundles down the fairway another 20 yards.  This naturalness is part of what endures this course to the members.

[Lou_Duran]

Over time, wouldn't aeration (greens primarily, but also fairways), maintenance equipment and cart traffic, irrigation, rain, etc. not tend to soften or eliminate these "micro undulations"?

Unless we are talking about virgin sandy sites, do these micro undulations normally exist?  Should they be created where they don't naturally exist?  Is golf not sufficiently interesting and difficult that these random undulations need to be introduced?  Do they affect the weak player disproportionally?

Sounds like some would like to tilt golf toward a game of chance as opposed to skill.  Let's go one step further and do the same to sand bunkers and greens.

All in the interest of the future of the game?

[JohnV]

Over time, wouldn't aeration (greens primarily, but also fairways), maintenance equipment and cart traffic, irrigation, rain, etc. not tend to soften or eliminate these "micro undulations"?

It might, but it also might create them.

Sounds like some would like to tilt golf toward a game of chance as opposed to skill.  Let's go one step further and do the same to sand bunkers and greens.

Skill comes in different forms.  If a fairway is dead flat, the person with the perfect swing can show his skill.  But, with small undulations, the person who can adapt his swing to the conditions will show his skills.  Same with bunkers and greens.  

If skill is just hitting the same perfect repeating stroke, then you are right.  I'll take the skill that comes from being able to adapt that stroke to the conditions found over that any day.

[Michael Hayes]

I think JVB is correct in the statement "skill comes in different forms"... I hear some grumbling about how a golfer pured it down the middle and got stuck witha hanging lie, these complaints usually come from the low single digits.  A great majority of players feel these micro undulations help to level the playing field .

Plus, I really think luck is an important factor in the game of golf, and older courses to me seem to have more of this built into them...

[George Pazin]

Yup. Somehow they think that an extra 30 yards is "harder" than having to hit an approach off the side of a hillock.

Lots of wisdom in this statement.

It's similar to people who want to remove contour/pitch from a green so they can speed it up.

Many people don't want harder, more interesting golf - they just want their egos stroked.

[Lou_Duran]

JVB,

I am not for eliminating these "micro undulations" from sites where they naturally occur.  I could even be for creating some of this on flat, non-descript sites on a restricted basis.

You and I have been around many good golfers.  Typically, what makes them good is the ability to adapt a functionally sound swing to varying conditions.  Just look at some of ther recovery shots from all sorts of bad lies and obstructions that these folks make.

We've been around some bad golfers as well.  Who do you think struggles from a hanging lie more?  For Pete's sake, take the average 20 handicapper and have him hit ten 100 yard shots to a medium size green from a perfectly flat tee.  Does he get more than 3 or 4 on?  Put them on a 5% decline and what are his chances?

I was under the impression that the more difficult the conditions, the greater the chance that the best player will come forward.  Isn't that what Sandy Tatum meant when he said in defense of difficult conditions at the US Open, something to the effect that it was not the USGA's intent to embarass the greatest players, only to identify them?

Am I mistaken, or have I gotten the impression here that among the things driving golf into the ground (an asssertion I don't agree with) are that courses are built too long, too difficult, and too expensive for the average guy?  Do guys who can't break 100 playing by the rules really on a good day want a bunch of faux "micro undulations" in the spirit of more interesting, complicated, time intensive golf?

 

 

[RJ_Daley]

I also agree about the perception of skill as hitting it longer and more accurately down smooth FWs, as more desirable than playing from varied and tricky lies.  I guess the treehouses preference tends towards the crafty golfers, not the bombers.  Probably because not many of us are bombers, are older, and have worked hard on those clever iron shots using the ground to equalise with the bombsquad.

When we see modern construction trying to create mogul fields on tight ground, we usually see something so artificial that it doesn't please the eye.  Yet, the mogul fields if placed well do provide this sort of micro contours effect.  I also think that the manufactured micro undulations idea is risky on most ground due to drainage and too many dead pockets of water collection.

If anyone missed the link on another thread, here is the look at BallyNeal, that may be the king of the micro undulations...

http://gallery.ballyneal.com/albums.php

[Bob_Huntley]

Am I mistaken, or have I gotten the impression here that among the things driving golf into the ground (an asssertion I don't agree with) are that courses are built too long, too difficult, and too expensive for the average guy?  Do guys who can't break 100 playing by the rules really on a good day want a bunch of faux "micro undulations" in the spirit of more interesting, complicated, time intensive golf?

 

Lou,

I am sure they do not, however guys who can't break a hundred playing by the rules don't have a problem. They can't hit the ball from a perfect lie, why worry about their problems from an imperfect one?

Bob

[JohnV]

Lou,

I agree that one thing that makes good golfers so good is there ability to deal with these things, which is why their complaints (and they are the ones who complain the most about stuff like this) are so ludicrous.

I think that micro undulations, by their nature, tend to be more natural than faux.  Too many times, I think they are removed from the fairways by heavy equipment that just flattens everything in the construction.  There are very few perfectly flat (or consistently sloped for drainage) pieces of ground in nature like I see in the middle of fairways at some courses by the big name architects.  If anything, removing them adds to the cost.

Dick, I think that the features pictured in the Ballyneal album are a lot more than "micro" undulations.

[Tom_Doak]

In the beginning of my career I let the micro-undulations in the fairway work themselves out.  High Pointe has a lot of them, which most architects referred to as "bad finish work," and indeed, that was the method for creating them ... run over the ground with a tractor to prepare it for seeding, but don't spend a lot of time smoothing out the imperfections.  [You can get away with that on sandy soil.]

A lot of people hated it -- downslopes 220 yards from the green as Rich mentioned, or just a bumpy cart ride for others.  It's still seen as poor work rather than a philosophy of not finishing everything to an unnatural state of perfection, even though you have that same bumpy cart ride in the fairways of Crystal Downs, or St. Andrews if they'd let you take a cart!

So, now we are far more careful in our finish work, and far more calculating at putting those bumps exactly where they bother the good players most!  Urbina would have a downslope from 275 to 300 yards from the tee on every hole if I would let him.  But if you look at photos of Sebonack or Stone Eagle, you'll see a lot of small contouring within the fairways.  Some of it was there beforehand; some of it wasn't.

[RJ_Daley]

Dick, I think that the features pictured in the Ballyneal album are a lot more than "micro" undulations.

Yes John, I take your point.  So I'm going to try to coin a phrase Tompaulian style.  How about "uber-undies" meaning super undulations?  BallyNeal has the uber-undies.

[Lou_Duran]

JVB,

I am seeing less and less completely flat areas even from the likes of Fazio and Nicklaus.  In fact, two of the "flatter" courses I've played in 2005 are Seawane and Austin Golf Club, the former faithfully restored to its early 20th century design, the latter by gca.com favorite Ben Crenshaw with Bill Coore.  I loved both of these courses, but I would have welcomed some of these lower-scale ground movements.

From the sites I've walked pre-construction here in Texas, I didn't see much of what I would call natural "micro undulations".  Perhaps it is the nature of the soil, weather, vegetation, and land use here.

Maybe those in the construction business can inform us on the feasibility and cost of saving and/or creating these features as the land is cleared, grubbed, tilled, and prepared for seeding/sprigging.  It would also be interesting to learn about the maintainability of such areas over a long period of time.  Perhaps you get bigger bang for the buck with more traditional mounds or bunkers.

Bob,

It is only a problem if you believe that growing the game is important to its survival, and that golf plays a meaningful role in a civilized society.  If x number of courses exist in an oversupplied national market and the number of rounds played are declining, then it might give you pause for concern.

Among the reasons for the decline suggested by the research, cost, difficulty of the game, and its time requirements, are typically cited.  It seems that placing emphasis on preserving or creating "micro undulations" in fairways would work to exacerbate the problems.    

Personally, I've learned to appreciate and even embrace irregularity and quirk since coming on this site.  Curiously, my handicap has also increased by more than four strokes during this time and shows no sign of leveling off.

I am now working on adopting a David Schmidt attitude and laughing off my frequent misses.  So, perhaps from that standpoint, the more "micro undulations" the more "hit and giggle".  I only hope that they come out with a diabetes friendly beer so I can trully enjoy myself.
     

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,  

I think you hit upon one of the main reasons clubs seek to eliminate micro-contouring or bumps, the increased use of carts.

There's no question that golfer's constantly complain about bumpy rides and want them eliminated.

Rich Goodale,

It's just the opposite, the "ME" generation thinks of everything, including golf and dress from their personal perspective without due consideration for the club, golf course and their fellow members.

[Mike Nuzzo]

I was under the impression that the more difficult the conditions, the greater the chance that the best player will come forward.  Isn't that what Sandy Tatum meant when he said in defense of difficult conditions at the US Open, something to the effect that it was not the USGA's intent to embarass the greatest players, only to identify them?

Are the conditions more difficult or more fun?
I think they are more fun.

You are getting very close to the the undulating green thread...
Are undulated greens an equalizer between the good and average players?

Cheers

[Lou_Duran]

Nuzzo-

Difficulty and fun are not mutually exclusive.  As a rule, I think many good players have more fun when the level of difficulty rises along with their comparative advantage.

The average Joe doesn't like being shown-up.  His sense of fairness is further attacked when he finally hits a decent drive in the fairway and has a downhill/sidehill lie which he proceeds to top and shank.  Me, I play the ball back in my stance, act like Seve if I lucked into a good shot, or, if not, just shake my head in disbelief (of my rotten luck).  

I do not think that undulating greens are an equalizer.  Slow green speeds probably are.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()