Greens contouring

[TEPaul]

Bill:

You're examples of Els and Riley 3-putting from the wrong spot on #18 really is the definition of "greens within a green". In a sense it really is perhaps one of the highest forms of sophisticated strategy when a player know if he gets his approach in the wrong position on a green to the day's pin he definitely has an inherent problem with 2-putting. Some people have a real problem with that type of architecture. I just don't happen to be one of them.  

[JSlonis]

Tom Doak,

Have you ever been to Ross' Mountain Ridge GC in NJ?  His green designs and internal contouring there, particularly on the front nine are some of the best I've seen in this state.

[Jimmy Muratt]

Speaking of internal contouring within a green, one that immediately comes to my mind is the short par 4 13th hole at the Kingsley Club.  There are fall offs around the green that collect into bunkers and fairway but the internal contouring really lets you get creative with approach shots and putts.  I could spend all day around that green just playing different chips and pitches to various pin positions.

I think severe internal contouring is much more important on shorter par 4's and all par 5's.  These are holes that even the strong player will potentially be playing a pitch or chip shot with their approach.  Radical internal contours allow one to get creative and use their imagination.

[Bill Wernecke Jr]

Jimmy

Thanks for reminding me of #13 at Kingsley -- a perfect example of what can be done with greens contours.

I know the hole might not be everyone's cup of tea, but I thought it was incredible.  I don't think it is even a 300 yard hole.  I played it 3 times, trying 3 different strategies.  Each time I hit my drive right where I wanted to.  Ended up in 3 different spots on the green (pin was far right, about halfway back, in a strange little bowl), and 3-putted all 3 times for bogeys.

There is a hole at the Gallery North in Phoenix that is not quite as good, but reminds me of it.

The options, the frustration, the thrill if you make a birdie or par -- that's what I call great architecture!

[Scott Witter]

Jeff B:

Thanks for pointing out the significance and relationship between internal contouring and resulting cost of construction, though I am not sure Tom D will agree with you, many others will gain from this info.  BTW, do you have any idea/thoughts about the size of some of the green surfaces designed by Raynor, CB, Travis etc., and are they/have they become problems with respect to cupping space and maintenance and "fair" play?  I think many have...and unfortunately many have been rebuilt to soften slopes/contours, but many, most I hope, have been preserved so we can continue to learn from and experience them.

Still, I think much about the many incredible surfaces created by these masters and I have played many of them...only to leave with lasting memories.  It is hard to argue against this great work, its simplicity, boldness of its time, and wonder if they were worried about cupping space, issues of play etc.?

Has history caused us to do otherwise? Has the game/equipment caused our approach/senses to change and accomodate the masses, except as you say, but only on the select big budget projects?

[John Shimp]

Based only on experience from playing Cape Arundel a couple of times this past summer, I think Tom D. brings up an interesting point on Walter Travis' green contouring.  I was struck very positively by the contouring on the greens at Cape Arundel.  In particular I liked the originality on several of the short par 4's (5, 7, 10, and 11 come to mind). While each of the greens are different, they shared an ability to kick balls off the green that werent flighted to the right spots and had some pretty extreme undulations that made it easy to 3 putt or to stop the ball close without a good chip/putt. Also, few of the greens shared replicated features such as general sloping (e.g. back to front), spines, or false fronts, etc.

[Tom_Doak]

I personally don't like the 13th green at Kingsley because I think there is just too much going on for one little hole, but that's just me.

Tom P:  I didn't mean to say that I never like a green that ties into an external contour ... that bump on the left of the second at Pacific Dunes is just one example of when I've done it, and that's one of my favorite greens.  (A good 50% of the green is almost flat.)  

However, I would say that I almost never like a green where the contours within are deliberately tied into something MAN-MADE on the exterior of the green, because architects have a tendency to exaggerate that contour to the point of stupidity.  Working with a natural contour is just the opposite ... you tend either to shave it down until it makes sense, or else give it a bit more latitude off to the side so it doesn't have too great of an effect.  Of course, some architects are good enough to make it hard to tell whether their contours are man-made or not; I have no idea which is true of the 9th green at Friars Head.

What I didn't like about the 7th at Friars Head was the "shelf" they made at the front left before it goes off the green.  If the greens are fast enough, a putt from front right down to front left would go off the green entirely and I couldn't see a way to stop it from happening.  You're right that the 18th at Sebonack is similar ... it turned out a little more severe than I really anticipated ... but the last thing I did there was to raise up the outside left of the green about six inches to create a separate pin placement on the left edge of the green, and to form a bowl so you could stop a putt from the upper right to the lower left [even though sometimes you may putt ten feet past the hole].

Jeff B:  I know what you're saying about green size.  At High Pointe there were a couple of hole locations that there's a contour just a little too close to the edge of the green, so you can barely use them; at Lost Dunes [non-USGA greens, sand everywhere] I just made the perimeters of the greens a bit bigger around the contours to make the same things work better, but some of those greens are pretty big as a result.  I never cease to be amazed by some of the old greens which have so much contour but are still small -- I think only one green at Crystal Downs is over 6000 square feet, and that's the sixth, which has more internal contour than you have ever seen in your life.

[Mike Nuzzo]

What I didn't like about the 7th at Friars Head was the "shelf" they made at the front left before it goes off the green.  If the greens are fast enough, a putt from front right down to front left would go off the green entirely and I couldn't see a way to stop it from happening.  

The route from the front right to the front left was through the back right... a large inverted U of a putt or an intersection for those mathamatically inclined.

[Tom_Doak]

Does that really work?  I didn't see it.

Ironically, if it does work, Bill Coore may have copied it from the 13th green at High Pointe!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I feel that the 7th at Friar's Head might be one of the best strategic greens I have ever been on, next to the 6th on the Eden Course  St. Andrews. It's quite obviously a green that you have to learn how to play, and in some cases that really enjoyable, thrilling leap of faith when you do. In most cases, I have found myself playing all different types of shots into the green, from every angle and slope of the approach in the fairway. (which is reminscent of a slow motion ocean or those globuial things you see floating around in a lava lamp)

The funnest pin position for me is quite obviously when the pin is in the lower left where I try to hit the front of the back third, right side, get the ball to turn left and follow the shelf which gets it to make a pretty wide "U" turn towards the hole. (or something to that effect) There are just so many ways to get to  every pin on that green. It's brilliant.

Don, you forgot to mention the 16th at Apache Stronghold.

Then there's the 9th at Rustic Canyon which is a totally natural contour that was found on the site; the 12th isn't bad either as far as internal contouring goes. You have the 2nd and the 5th and the 8th at Hidden Creek, which are a blast. And how can one forget the saddle-like ridge of the 12th at Plainfield or the  totally colorful green complexes at Winged Foot?

But back to the Eden Course.

Tom, Could the Eden be one of the more overlooked as far as a course with some great internal greens in Golf, or at least "Scoot-lin?" What about the holes 2, 3, 4, 6 & 7 on the Old Course? (holes that probably require as much study then the more popular holes on the back)

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mike, Seems as if we have both made that "U" putt before!

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D said, "So much of the discussion of courses here nowadays is about the LOOK of this or that golf course and nothing about how it plays.  And the discussion of the look is all about the bunkers ... nothing about the way greens are framed or backgrounded or not, nothing about visual balance vs. imbalance, etc.

The most important parts of design are 1) routing, 2) greens contouring, with bunkering third at best."

Tom -- Kudos to you for saying something I've been mentioning for quite some time. Too much focus is geared towards the "LOOK" you mentioned -- the primary focus should be on the nature of how a particular hole / course plays.

I have grown especially tired of those who gush on and on about how bunkers and the like appear from the eye. Rarely, do you get as much discussion on the nature of the hole / course itself and how it handles the primary feature -- the play test.

Golf is not simply an art exercise -- it is a game of shots and holes. On how practical the design is while at the same time offering the opportunity to feature a complex routing / green contours dynamic which compels the player to try their skills again and again.

[ForkaB]

Tom, Could the Eden be one of the more overlooked as far as a course with some great internal greens in Golf, or at least "Scoot-lin?" What about the holes 2, 3, 4, 6 & 7 on the Old Course? (holes that probably require as much study then the more popular holes on the back)

Tommy

I'm not Tom, but as you know I have "studied on" (in a Cirbian sense) these holes recently and I think that the greens on 12-16 on the Old Course (the old, original, "natural" ones) still very much trump the 19th centrury manufactured whippersnappers that are 2-6.  The former have better internal contours as well as more sophisticated approaches.  IMO, of course. It's not for nothing that the best players in the world can eat up the front 9 and then struggle coming in (and this phenomenon is pretty much regardless of wind direction and speed).

PS--As you know, I love the Eden, but after #1, there are no truly great greens.  All good ones, mind you, but no great ones.  Even 6 or 7, although they come close........

[Tommy_Naccarato]

iRch,
Couldn't disagree more about the 6th on the Eden. Go out there and play from every angle in the fairway and figure for a front right, back right, back left pin and tell me it isn't great. The 7th is no slouch either.

My point is about the Old Course #2, 3, 6, & 7 is that few people really can remember or talk about those greens and their contours--few can even remember them and their severity. While I didn't want to say that one side is better then the other, and may have, I'm really saying that one side is more overlooked then is deserved.

[Tom_Doak]

Tommy:  I am sort of lost in your commentary about the greens on the Eden course because I only remember the old numbering   and I'm pretty sure it's not the old sixth green you're talking about.  But I do think there are some great greens on the Eden, more than one of them.

I also agree wholeheartedly that those early greens on the Old Course are some of the wildest stuff in the entire world of golf, and yet no one ever talks about them.  But probably for the reason that Rich cites:  the back nine greens are even better.  On the 16th, at the Dunhill I threaded a driver through the right side of the fairway [the classic sucker play, but remember it was a best-ball event for me], and yet I still had a difficult shot with that diagonal tier running through the front of the green making me wonder whether to pitch or to run and how so ... I left it short and three-putted.

[A_Clay_Man]

 My first Doak hole I ever played was #1 at Apache Stronghold. The buried baby elephant there, was a great intro.

No one has mentioned Baxter's, Black Mesa.(Mike Nuzzo) The internal contours are just a blast to experiment with, and were inspired by TOC's.

Even Tom Fazio uses some wild internal contours. I always thought it was his attempt at humor. At least I was laughing.

[ForkaB]

Tommy N.

You are entitled to your opinion regarding the 6th, but I disagree with it.  I've only played it 5-6 times, but I suspect that both us need to play it much more than either of us have to make a definitive statement.  To me, compared to the nearly 1000 links greens I have played, it is good, but not seriously memorable, unlike, say the 6th at Brora.......

Tom D

My guess is that the 6th is still the 6th.  Following the 1st of the two crossing short holes.  It's main feature is a neat little swale running from front left to middle right, if I'm not mistaken.  If I am mistaken, Tommy N. you can sue or chastise me!

[Tom_Doak]

Rich:  Originally the sixth was the short par-4 along the estuary, and the two crossing holes were the seventh and fourteenth.  In the redesign they eliminated the first and second holes, and converted the old 3rd green (which was a par 3) into a short 4.  But I can't follow it after you get to the first crossing par 3, which is now #5, I think!

[ForkaB]

Thanks, Tom.

I had a Senior Moment, forgetting the elimination of 1 and 2, but then again you are much more Senior to me regarding the Eden as I only played it for the first time in 1997!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

The current day sixth would have been the old 7th and current day 7th, the old 8th.  I think.

Anyway, back to the old 7th/modern 6th. The green is the one Rich suggests, only I would describe it more of starting out as a small creek bed (or depression that runs the ball from the left side and spills out to the lower right. If you were out in the right side fairway with the duneline blocking out the entire right side of the green for say a right pin, you can hit a shot to the left and watch the ball disappear as it turns right, sort of like the way the ball moves on the 9th at Apache Stronghold (I love that green) Defensively, if the pin is to the back left, you can't find a better example of a green defending itself, (at the Eden) and which I feel is reiterated in Wethered & Simpson's chapter of Attack & Defence in The Architectural Side of Golf.

Attack & Defence in the same way one is punished in trying the right hand side at #16 of the GREATEST course of them all!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

My bad! Yes, Tom has it right. I forgot it was two holes that got the kick in that wonderful driving range development! (I was thnking it was one)

The current crossing holes are the 5th & 8th.

[David Druzisky]

Good discussion to get the mind working.  Some of you really have some great intimate knowledge of the courses you bring up!

There is a lot of discussion about old designs and their interesting contours. How much do you think green speeds of modern times has effected architects in trying to instill those characteristics?  I have at times struggled to add movement within surfaces because I know the greens will be maintained at 9 to 10.  Jeff B's point about green size extends here in that not only do the specific movements take up area but the transition needed to slow the ball is also now greater is it not?

Also, two of my recent projects were located on sites with a fair amount of elevation change and large flowing landscapes that suggested similar shaping to compliment it.  The greens had to become an extension of that type of shaping and we really focused on the transition of surrounds to surface and back out as I like to think of it as.  With that accomplished the inernal "contours" then became more along the lines of quirky subtle breaks or tweaks that can be hard to pick up on unless you really study it.  Gentle on the mid to higher handicap player yet can be turned up a gear when needed for tournaments and such keeping the better players focused.

In addition, the game is played a little differently now.  Much more approaching with high and sometimes soft shots.  Also shorter approaches for many.  Less bouding of the ball onto the surface.  Does this translate to different ideas concerning surafce movement?

DbD

[Tom_Doak]

David:

That would also describe a lot of the greens at Cape Kidnappers ... there is a pronounced tilt to go with the tilt of the land, but the internal contouring is much more subtle there than on most of our courses, and when it does come it comes in a wave rather than a bump.

I think you can still get away with A LOT of contour in greens as long as they stay between 9 and 10 on the Stimpmeter.  (You should come and play Crystal Downs sometime to see what they get away with!)  However, as soon as you go up to 10 1/2 or 11, those same greens get just about impossible even for the best putter in the world.

The greens at Sebonack are quite severe and I was surprised with some of the things Jack agreed to ... I suspect he has come to the conclusion that the young guys hit it so far that more contour in the greens is the course's only defense.  When we discussed green speeds he pointedly asked the superintendent how fast they would be maintained, and when the superintendent responded 10 1/2, Jack said oh, okay, I just don't want them to be fast!  Apparently his standard of "fast" is above 11 1/2.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

My fondness for spines in greens has never been contingent upon their tie-in with surrounding features.

My experiences with contouring and spines in greens is primarily based upon courses by CBM, SR and CB.

In most of these cases, the internal contours in the greens are indepependent of the surrounding areas.

I do feel that internal contouring and spines should bear a relationship to the approach shot.