Can you create interest and challenge by simple means ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

By simply placing a mound or pimple in the middle of a green, especially a fairly large green.

Think of the exponential demand on the approach and recovery shots, and the demand on putting skillls that are created by such a simple feature.

Think of the old 18th at Pine Valley.

Why is this feature so rare ?

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

I'll try to get out to the Mines GC tomorrow and take a picture of this exact feature for you. It's on the 10th hole. Better yet, let me know when you're coming to Michigan.

Joe

[CHrisB]

Patrick,
This is what impressed me so much about some of the greens at Wilmington CC in Delaware. Take a large green, tilt it, place a hump in the middle, and there you have it--the interior pins are tough, the holes on the edges are tough (because of the usual danger of short-siding yourself but also of having to negotiate the hump if you miss too far the other way). Then increase the green speed and it really becomes all anyone can handle.

There's a version of this concept at #10 of the Old Town Club in Winston-Salem, NC (Perry Maxwell), but it's not tilted and the green is very small. I'd call it a "fried egg" green. It works well as a short par 4 but it can be hard to even hit the green when it plays firm.

[Adam_Messix]

Pat--

There is a long and narrow green at Chester River Y & CC where I grew up, #11, that has just such a mound in front of the green.  It's not a long hole at 375 yards, but there is a small valley fronting the green that works up with a nob directly in the center fronting the green.  It's a cool feature and surprising considering who designed it, Ed Ault.  

Is it possible for an entire course to be this way?  I think yes.  I have discussed this at length with someone on this site and hopefully he'll chime in.  

Highlands CC in North Carolina does a great job of using the land features as the majority of the "hazards".  Holes 7 and 8 are great examples of this.  I think the course has something in the ballpark of 26 or 27 bunkers and they are all put to good use.  

[Mike_Sweeney]

By simply placing a mound or pimple in the middle of a green, especially a fairly large green.

Patrick,

I played with a very good club player last summer at Hidden Creek. I think he shot 76 first time at the course and took a 7 on #8. He hated that freakin hole!!

It is one of my favorites.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Sweeney,

The genesis of this thread wasn't the 8th at Hidden Creek, and, to be honest, I hadn't even thought of # 8 when crafting this thread.

But, now that you mention it, that's exactly what I meant, a simple but significant pimple/mound on the green dramatically alters the play of the entire hole, the drive, approach, recovery and putts.  It has an impact far beyond its simplistic design.

It has to be an inexpensive feature to incorporate into the green, yet, the results provide tremendous bang for the buck.

I'm surprised that I haven't seen the feature more often.

[David_Madison]

#3 green at Old Town (referenced in Chris Brauner's response) has a similar feature, a simple horizontal mound that runs perhaps 10' left/right and just a few feet deep. Takes an otherwise large but simple green and creates all kinds of interesting cups and playing demands.

Is it possible that the reason we don't see more of this type of thing, especially on newer greens, is the difficulty in getting the layers right in a USGA spec green?

[James Bennett]

I recall in 1978 at Kingswood GC in Melbourne that #16 (a par 5) had a new green at that time which incorporated at the front of the green (perhaps 12 feet on from the front middle) a gentle moundof perhaps one foot high at most.  That coupled with the very firm and very fast greens that Kingswood was renowned for at that time produced a significant challenge to any approach shot.  any pitch or chip and run for a third shot had to be precise if the pin was to be challenged.

I expect Graeme Grant was the course supt at that time, but don't now whether he was the initiator or builder of the new green.

I have no idea whether this green still exists, unfortunately.

Patrick, I agree that it is a very simple, low cost concept (although keeping the high point healthy during extended drought with a USGA-type base isn't necessarily simple) that produces lots of challenges.  On this occasion at Kingswood #16, the mound was in the front centre of a green of average width, and affected most shots.  There would also be an option on a wider green of offering greater challenge to play from one side of the green.

James B

[A_Clay_Man]

13th at pg. A Neville design.

[Mark_F]

Patrick,

Precisely because golfers aren't interested in intriguing features that make you think.

Look at the kerfuffle caused by four holes after our GCA day at my course.

Would you say that equipment has a lot to do with it?

I know there are plenty of stats to say the average golfer is much the same handicap as they have ever been, but a lot of people tend to hit it a long way - it seems as if I am the only person in the country who hits it less than 240 metres these days, and 300 metres amongst single figure men is not uncommon - which makes it a little easier to score, and such confounding features get in the way of one's score.

[Scott Coan]

Patrick,

Absolutely you can and they don't have to be on the green.  Notice the 3 little humps on the right side of the 9th green at Paraparaumu.  They never really enter your mind on your approach because they are so benign as to not warrant any attention at that point.  But I can promise you that they garner all your attention once you miss to this side and you have to navigate one of these babies to a short pin.

Do you bump into the little hump, or flop over and try and stop on a short side, or use the 3-wood/putter to putt over them.  And if you do putt, how hard to you have to hit it to get up and over to get it close?

These little humps make a routine up-and-down a great challenge!

[Mike_Sweeney]

I can't remember which hole, but I will always remember the Super at Cypress who I just happened to be paired with playing at Pasatiempo pointing out a tiny tiny bump more than a mound in front of a green at Pasa. It really did alter the entire approach.

[TEPaul]

"Mike Sweeney,
The genesis of this thread wasn't the 8th at Hidden Creek, and, to be honest, I hadn't even thought of # 8 when crafting this thread."

Pat;

What was the genesis of this thread?  

[TEPaul]

On the other hand, it's always been my feeling that when almost the entire strategy of a hole can basically revolve around a single feature, whether it be a bunker, a mound in a green, or practically anything else, it doesn't get much more simplistically sublime than that.

But, Pat, if the genesis for this thread actually was the old mound (the pimple) in the 18th green at PVGC are you now suggesting it should be restored exactly as it once was?

The reason I ask that is there certainly are photos of it that would allow them to restore it exactly as it was.

On the other hand, there is documentation galore at the club's archives about Crump's original purpose in building it and what he planned to do with it as well as a number of years of play with it that make it obvious it simply wasn't working at all well in the opinions of those who played the golf course.

Are you actually suggesting that none of that should be considered? And, if not, why not?

[Patrick_Mucci]

But, Pat, if the genesis for this thread actually was the old mound (the pimple) in the 18th green at PVGC

But, it wasn't, ball washer breath.

The genesis was an old kidney shaped green that had been altered years ago to a fairly large, nondescript green.
Recently, the green was to have been altered, such that a pimple would be created in the middle.   Unfortunately, that didn't happen, hence, the green, approach, recovery and putting remain ...... bland.

I was thinking how much more would be added to the hole with the insertion of this one, simple, inexpensive feature.
[/color]
are you now suggesting it should be restored exactly as it once was?

I would certainly endorse that restoration.
It would have a beneficial effect on the drive, approach, recovery and putting.   As it is now, the punchbowl like green is bland.   Crump got it right the first time, and it never should have been removed to create a  bland or featureless green.[/color]

The reason I ask that is there certainly are photos of it that would allow them to restore it exactly as it was.

I've seen that picture and am impressed by how it positively impacts the hole.[/color]

On the other hand, there is documentation galore at the club's archives about Crump's original purpose in building it and what he planned to do with it as well as a number of years of play with it that make it obvious it simply wasn't working at all well in the opinions of those who played the golf course.

That's not the entire story, nor is it the correct story.

The feature had to work if you believe in physics, angles of attack, the impact of architectural features and shot values.

What proof do you have that it wasn't working, from the perspective of playability ?

How could it not work ?

Opiinions from golfers perspectives tend to be couched in the context of their own game, and not from a more global, unbiased view.
 
You conveniently left out that in lieu of the pimple a mound or ridge might be substituted.

Crump realized that the green needed internal features to make the entire hole function as a championship finishing hole, and not as a mundane hole on the approach, recovery and putting.[/color]

Are you actually suggesting that none of that should be considered? And, if not, why not?

Crump's intentions are clear, and manifested in the FACT that
he designed and built the green with the pimple in it.
That is INDISPUTABLE.

Crump also aluded to the creation of a ridge or mound running through the green.

It's clear that Crump intended the green to be far more challenging than its present version, and that challenge took the form of internal features, be they a pimple, ridge or mound.

Crump intended PV to be a "championship" golf course for the very best players, and as such, I doubt he would have a finishing hole with such a week green and surrounds.

In FACT, we know he didn't intend that because he designed and built the 18th green with a special internal feature in the green.   One that affected all manner of play on the hole, the drive, approach, recovery and putting.

Today, Crump's design and construction of the 18th green remains disfigured, sanitized by others who allege that they spoke for Crump.

Crump spoke for Crump and he designed and built that green with a pimple in the middle of it.  Case Closed.

I know you'll go on a rant defending those who defaced the 18th green, but, there is no defense when you consider how that simple feature enhances everything about the hole.

There's an exponential improvement derived from that simple feature, and, it should be restored. [/color]

[TEPaul]

"That's not the entire story, nor is it the correct story."

Pat:

Is that right? Do you know something I don't about it? Have you looked at the archives that involve that pimple from Crump's perspective, what he told his friends about it and what he planned to do with it? Who have you spoken with who remembers it or remembers what it was like in play, and what the memberships consensus of it was?

Crump did intend to construct some kind of a ridge into the green running from perhaps the position of that pimple to the right side of the green. It's even recorded what his purpose in doing that was. But in so doing he told his two closest friends there that he planned to remove the pimple because he built it to be only temporary.

If you want to dispute that documentation I really wonder what you plan to use that's factual. You are interested in FACTS rather than speculation, aren't you?

It did exist but if there's clear documentation that Crump considered it temporary and planned to remove it and to construct in its place some kind of a ridge in the green, that certainly should be seriously considered, don't you think?

I would not suggest they restore the pimple that Crump intended as temporary but I would suggest they consider doing what he eventually planned to do---eg put a ridge into the green for the very same reason he planned to do just that.

[Paul_Turner]

The current 18th green isn't exactly a pushover!  Or was I missing something?  Big camber left to right as I recall.

[Paul_Turner]

Also, is a very tough green, with a pimple in it, too much after a long forced carry approach (even at ultra difficult PV)?

[Jordan Wall]

By simply placing a mound or pimple in the middle of a green, especially a fairly large green.

According to Ran's review, #6 at NGLA.

[Tom Dunne]

"You don't need a twenty foot high contour to create interest--sometimes a two-inch contour on a green have just as much of an impact, if not more." --Bill Coore

[Patrick_Mucci]

The current 18th green isn't exactly a pushover!  Or was I missing something?  Big camber left to right as I recall.

It is a pushover.

It's over 11,000 square feet in a saucer like or punchbowl configuration that tends to correct mis-hit shots.

It doesn't present an undue challenge on approaches, recoveries or putts, and, it doesn't present anywhere near the challenge that it did when it had the center pimple, which is how Crump designed and built it for championship play.

Jordan Wall,

The feature at # 6 is not a pimple or mound, it's far more complex than that.

Tom Dunne,

In this case a two inch contour won't cut it.
It's a green in excess of 11,000 square feet.

[Patrick_Mucci]

On the other hand, there is documentation galore at the club's archives about Crump's original purpose in building it and what he planned to do with it as well as a number of years of play with it that make it obvious it simply wasn't working at all well in the opinions of those who played the golf course.

That's not the entire story, nor is it the correct story.
[/color]

I stand by my comment.
Your statement, that appears above, is not the entire story, nor is it the correct story.[/color]


Crump's intentions are clear, and manifested in the FACT that
he designed and built the green with the pimple in it.
That is INDISPUTABLE.[/color]

[Paul_Turner]

Patrick

If you change 18 to how it was prior to Crump's death because that's what he built.  Then by the same logic all the other redesigned greens should be changed back to their original specs 6,7?,8 (both),9 (both),11,17.

Would you want that?

The 18th green has stood the test of time.  Leave it alone

[George Pazin]

To suggest another, I always liked what Macdonald had to say about the redan - take a table, tilt it away from you, and then set it at an angle (paraphrasing here). That strikes me as simple and ingenious.

Of course, simply tilting it away from you would also create much interest, and that's even simpler. Too bad few do it.

[Chris Kane]

Precisely because golfers aren't interested in intriguing features that make you think.

Look at the kerfuffle caused by four holes after our GCA day at my course.

Mark, I would be interested to hear of who played at St Andrews Beach last Sunday that isn't "interested in intriguing features that make you think"  - you can send the list by PM if you don't want to do it here.