C&C and internal green contours...

[John Kavanaugh]

JakaB,

How do you read break with your feet on 10-20-30-40+ foot putts ?

Don't play WFW.
It's one of the most difficult sets of greens to read that I've ever played, and playing barefoot won't help you much.

If you read putts with your feet, which I doubt, that would explain why you call yourself a bad putter.

You start reading greens before you even reach them.
It's a process not confined to foot work.
It also involves the surrounds and sight.

See, see the ball, be, be the ball.

Patrick,

Would you agree that the greens at WFW and Hidden Creek are two different styles...If so, how would you describe each..

[A_Clay_Man]

J.b.- The word hate is so strong. Did someone five putt in your group, or the one ahead? And if they did, maybe they should practice putting? How often, and for what duration, do you practice putting? I do disagree wholeheartedly with the sentiment of your post. It's been my experience that internal contours, or  well sloping greens, are the life blood of causing your brain to work. The days I can't stand are when I'm on a course and I have putts of varying lengths and every single one of them requires less than a foot of read. To me, those are the most boring greens and gaurantee that I won't want to go around again sometime soon.

Thomas,
That was excellent! TY

[John Kirk]

No need to be sorry, JK.  I like this thread.  It's less about C&C and more green contouring.

Now I know why Patrick was baffled by my remark about WFW's greens.  I didn't make a lot of putts there, but I read them correctly all day long.  You know why?  Because I walk them off, and use my feet to feel the break if I'm unsure, especially short putts.  I can see his point, though, because a few of the putts were hard to figure out.

You'd love Winged Foot's greens, which were severe, but with gentle transitions that blended seamlessly into the rest of the green complex.  There are very few ridges or humps, and lots of barely perceptible changes in slope.   We'll get to see them close up on TV next month.

When it first opened, Poppy Hills (RTJ Jr.) had a couple of greens with very severe and "non-gradual" contouring.  #15, a 200 yarder, had a huge elephant in the middle.  #5, a mid length par 4, was really a wild green.  These greens were changed and made less severe a few years later.  They probably received too many complaints about them from the playing public and especially the PGA tour, who plays there once a year.

I know a scratch golfer at my club who played in a tournament at Bandon Trails last year, and thought a few of the greens should be rebuilt (#5 and #16 probably).  I think the perception of severe contouring has changed since Poppy Hills was built, and greens like these are likely to remain intact.

Seems like it's always the really skilled players who complain about this sort of thing.  

[RJ_Daley]

As far as my natural comment goes I'd like to see greens that appear to be the result of either wind or water erosion...kind of a constant flow here or there.  C&C greens remind me of the texture of kitty litter after you kick the box...no rhyme or reason for the flow.  I don't like this new fad of random randomness...sorry again.

Barney, always the provocatuer...

So, how about some examples of greens that are the "result" of wind and water erosion.  I'm not familiar with that greens model of construction.  What texture do those wind and water erosion greens present?  And, just what do you mean by "texture"?  Is it the turf, the frequency of contours to slopes, the percent of slopes?  

The texture of kitty litter after the litter box is kicked?  Sorry, I don't own a cat nor do I like them much.  I guess I never contemplated greens texture in that context.  I know what root zone sand/organic mixtures look like.  But we don't putt on that stuff do we.   We like to grow turf on top first!  But, surely turf in all its varieties and cultivars has texture.  I get that.  

So Barney, how about you explain with real world examples of actual golf courses you have played what all this kitty litter you are spilling around really means.  

If you can define great greens as succinctly as the two quotes offered by Tommy, I will be in your debt for the advanced knowledge of that aspect of golf course architecture and design.

[PThomas]

John:  are you saying you like perfectly flat greens or what?  is that what's at VN?

putting is half the game, and it should be a challenge as well

the fact that greens have less slope and contour because of green speeds is an unfortunate trend

[Dan Kelly]

I'd like to see greens that appear to be the result of either wind or water erosion...kind of a constant flow here or there.

You mean like, say, the Grand Canyon of the Colorado?

[John Kavanaugh]

You'd love Winged Foot's greens, which were severe, but with gentle transitions that blended seamlessly into the rest of the green complex.  There are very few ridges or humps, and lots of barely perceptible changes in slope.  

To all,

I thought the above was a great description of greens I would like...I'm sure they are anything but flat..

If someone could find a picture of the Sahara Desert with the wind blown sand dunes that contain zero vegetation I bet that is what I'm looking for....natural flowing contours.  Now find that pic and prove Tommy right..

[Brent Hutto]

I think Mr. Kavenaugh is expressing a preference for greens that are either pitched (front to back, left to right, etc.) or shaped in a smooth curve (concave or convex) or some combination of the two but with no inflection points. So if you're standing on an upslope when stroking a long putt you know that either the upslope continues or maybe it flattens out. It won't be uphill for a while then back down then back up again.

So a tilt is OK, a false front is OK, tiers are OK, even dead flat is OK.

But an isolated hump or a hollow that affects just a small portion of the line of a putt is not OK.

I've heard that opinion expressed before. In fact, I hear it from members of my previous club (large, fast, tiered greens) who like me have joined my current club (medium sized, fast, many different shapes) and have found their handicap going up a stroke or two just because of the tricky greens.

[RJ_Daley]

or


JK, which of the above do you think might make a nice green texture?  Why?  How would you grow turf there and then mow it?  Which greens have you ever seen that have these qualities?

[John Kavanaugh]

RJ,

I like the top one...the bottom right portion of the pic reminds me of the Punchbowl at St. Louis CC....The 5th I believe.

[Dan Kelly]

Green contours and a lot of other things are dictated by the design program and intended clientele.
  Do we build steep greens on steep greensites, and flat greens on flat holes, or build the same contours (or perhaps more to compensate for the otherwise easier flat hole?) on each?

Jeff,

When you come up with another formula(s) to address this situation please don't print it, just keep it to your self.

Mr. Moran --

Which "formula" are you referring to here?

JakaB --

Perhaps you're a "horrible" putter because you're trying to read putts with feet that have kicked too many litter boxes?

[John Foley]

I remember reading a long time ago about the greens at Kapalua and either C or C describing them like a potato chip. Curves, bumps, lumps, raised areas, fall off areas. Totally random. If you look at the C & C greens isn't that the key feature in them, the movements are totally random? Look at the 5th green at Sand Hills, it has a small ridge bisecting the green and it appears totally random. You would not expect that green should that left in it. The green benefits tremendously by that randow feature put in.

One of the best internal contours I've seen is the hump on the 11th green at Morgan Hill. Just enough to know that on the wrong side of it two puts will be difficult, but the thinking that goes into the attempt to make the two put a reality is what makes these internal greens extremly fun to putt.

Given how much C&C have admired Maxwell's green's, can we desribe his greens in the same random nature?

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Green contours and a lot of other things are dictated by the design program and intended clientele.
  Do we build steep greens on steep greensites, and flat greens on flat holes, or build the same contours (or perhaps more to compensate for the otherwise easier flat hole?) on each?

Jeff,

When you come up with another formula(s) to address this situation please don't print it, just keep it to your self.

Mr. Moran --

Which "formula" are you referring to here?

JakaB --

Perhaps you're a "horrible" putter because you're trying to read putts with feet that have kicked too many litter boxes?

Formulas that could be derived out of the statement I quoted from Jeff, assuming he engaged in such an exercise.

[Dan Kelly]

Green contours and a lot of other things are dictated by the design program and intended clientele.
  Do we build steep greens on steep greensites, and flat greens on flat holes, or build the same contours (or perhaps more to compensate for the otherwise easier flat hole?) on each?

Jeff,

When you come up with another formula(s) to address this situation please don't print it, just keep it to your self.

Mr. Moran --

Which "formula" are you referring to here?

JakaB --

Perhaps you're a "horrible" putter because you're trying to read putts with feet that have kicked too many litter boxes?

Formulas that could be derived out of the statement I quoted from Jeff, assuming he engaged in such an exercise.

Jeff's "statement" was a question.

I must be missing something here. Perhaps a lot.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Green contours and a lot of other things are dictated by the design program and intended clientele.
  Do we build steep greens on steep greensites, and flat greens on flat holes, or build the same contours (or perhaps more to compensate for the otherwise easier flat hole?) on each?

Jeff,

When you come up with another formula(s) to address this situation please don't print it, just keep it to your self.

Mr. Moran --

Which "formula" are you referring to here?

JakaB --

Perhaps you're a "horrible" putter because you're trying to read putts with feet that have kicked too many litter boxes?

Formulas that could be derived out of the statement I quoted from Jeff, assuming he engaged in such an exercise.

Jeff's "statement" was a question.

I must be missing something here. Perhaps a lot.

Probably me Dan.  Sorry for the confusion.

[ed_getka]

Tommy,
   It really isn't necessary to be that insulting when you post. We all know JakaB likes to amuse himself, so just ignore him.

John Kirk,
   I am interested in how you read greens by walking them. Do you walk along the path the ball will take with your feet parallel to the line? Or do you stop every so often and turn so your feet are perpendicular to the line? The reason I ask is that one of the last things I pay attention to on a putt as I stand over it is what I feel with my feet. I have learned to play more or less break on a putt due to the input from my feet. Apparently Patrick isn't as sophisticated a putter as us.

Greens with internal contour are the soul of golf for me. No matter how much internal contour there is there is no putt that breaks five ways. There may be 5 different pieces of contour to consider on the way to the hole but in the vast majority of cases the putt will only break two ways when all is said and done.

[Matt MacIver]

So, how about some examples of greens that are the "result" of wind and water erosion.  


TOC?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JakaB,

The question about the styles or differences in the greens at WFW and HC is a good one.

Rather than answer spontaneously, I'd rather think about it a little more.

In general, WFW greens are sloped back to front with a high side shoulder influencing approach, recovery and putting.

But, internally, I'd like to give it more thought.

John Kirk,

I don't mean to discredit your method of reading greens, but, I find it difficult to believe that you can feel pitch through an inch of leather, plastic and other materials as you traipse about the green, especially since you don't "walk" your line, from your ball to the hole.

And, standing at your ball can have little to do with the intervening putting surface between your ball and the hole.

While I've only been playing Hidden Creek for about 5 years, I do have about 50 years of experience in playing WFW and WFE.  Of all of the Tillinghast courses I've played, WFW's greens were always the most difficult for me to read.
Then again, I didn't have the best eyesight, but, until I broke my wrist playing basketball in 1985, I would say that I was a fairly proficient putter.  Unfortunately, that skill returns rarely.  Although, for a round or two at Sand Hills, a C&C course JakaB, I did putt like the olde days.  

[Brent Hutto]

No matter how much internal contour there is there is no putt that breaks five ways. There may be 5 different pieces of contour to consider on the way to the hole but in the vast majority of cases the putt will only break two ways when all is said and done.

In the case of Mr. Kavanaugh maybe those two ways are "away from the hole" and "further away from the hole". It probably just seems like it took five breaks.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ed Getka,

In general, you should understand that a putt is influenced less at it's starting point and more at its stopping point due to it's relative speed as it transitions from and to those points.

In other words, your feet have been lying to you.
Or, at the very least, they haven't been telling you the entire story  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dan Kelly,

Thanks for coming to my defense.  Usually, the line "You have a keen grasp of the obvious" is an insult, but on this board, it puts you in truly elite company.  People are so ready to go off the handle, they don't even read a post before disagreeing with it.

Tommy,

I was in SoCal earlier this month.  They have plenty of pharmacies.  Find one and get some laxatives.

I would respond in more detail to your post, but I it is too far forward in this screen to be viewable in the response screen.  OH, and it doesn't really deserve it anyway.  I don't need a lesson from old books. Believe it or not, I have read them, too, and not just looked at the "purty pictures."  

Now, having dispensed with the seemingly obligatory deragatory statements (I really to need to reread the GCA misson statement.....they must be required..... back to gca commentary.......

RJ, (and others)

If anyone built a green based on those photos it would have some severe scalping problems! Ditto with any built to simulate erosion.  The Old Course greens were built on natural (I presume, no one knows for sure) which in fact were the uneroded areas of the land, no?

Bill McBride,

Call it what you want, and expand top 100 to top 1000 if you want.  Of all the 17,000 golf courses built in the US, if you assume the bell curve theory, less than 10% were ever intended to be great architecture.  Another 10% were probably built to be learning courses or golf factories with no architectural merit intended or sought.  The other 80% have some blend of practical considerations and arcitectural merit.  Which is precisely why this web site has such spirited discussions.

Just so you get the idea of my visions when the words "internal contours" were mentioned I picture little bumps in the green, vs. long slopes tying in from the edges, which could be considered external contours coming into the green.  (semantics, I know, and its possible that some of the disagreements here stem from each of our own personal visions of that phrase)  

For example, while Maxwell did include buried elephants completely in the green, some other midwestern descendants and/or those influenced by his work, generally kept the true high point off the green, and the longer flowing contours - while not flat by any stretch - simply died out one third to one half the way across the green.

IMHO, all are good greens, but just a different style.

In modern times, the idea of an internal mound, bump )Did William Diddell call those diddel bumps?) has gone largely by the wayside because of the loss of cup spaces it causes (I expounded on this earlier this year - You could look it up, but a one foot mound takes out over 300 sf of cup space, which equates to about 5% of the typical green) and the fact that in USGA type greens, the tops tend to dry out and get scalped by mowers.

Thus, when you are responsible for either designing or paying for a course to be designed and then maintained for ever, you just might have a few questions as to whether this type of feature is for you.  If on a budget, adding 5% (or if there are multiple mounds in the green design 15-20% to the size of your greens may incur $70-100K in construction costs.  If it were your money, you might think differently.  At least, most owners trying to provide the sacred cow of "affordable golf" would question it when very few golfers would notice it, there are many great greens without diddle bumps, and a lot of players (for green reading reasons listed above) don't even like them that much.

I come here to share real world perspective for those who care.  That is a very real world perspective.

Going back to Kelly's statement about my "formulas" I was merely pointing out that greens really aren't natural anyway.  They are built on fill pads, or on pads leveled off in hillsides, or whatever.  The actual contouring is usually a result of drainage, following natural slopes, flattening enough area to set a pin, providing back flare ups or false fronts on uphlll holes for better vision, etc.  There are very few times in the real world other than on exceptional sites, where we give a lot of consideration to wind erosion, or the overall character of the ground the green sits on in creating the actual contours.

As to Tommy's example of a wildly contour green that some love, some don't.  From your description, its easy to see it might not be strategic, although I have no qualms about a highly contoured green which in and of itself is the primary feature of the hole.  I don't know how many golf holes I have built, but doing one of those every few years is a nice variety for a designer, and I suspect that is exactly why Bell did it - he did so much work in one area he was simply trying to do something different.

Now let's ask the other question about various bumps regarding strategy.  The long slopes coming in from the outside of the green can influence strategy - players can use them to feed the ball to the hole.  Similarly, a long more or less continuous up slope one direction or another can make the approach from the side of the fw facing that most directly the best angle.  In fact, any long more or less continuous slope (think Redan style holes) ir reliable in how a ball reacts, and thus opens up the basic green strategy to a wider range of players who have mere mortal accuracy.

Can a green with a series of small bumps in the middle be strategic in the same way?  Only a few golfers in the world have the distance and directional control to get it between a few random contours to a pin location.  In most cases, a pretty good shot may be deflected by those internal bumps and ridges away from the pin.  Golfers don't generally like that!  In truth, small doses of that go a long way.

Aesthetically, tying in the slopes from the edges ususally works well on gently rolling land.  Ideally, after flattening the contours enough to be practical, its usually good to grade the green surface and the surrounds to look as if they are one.  Sometimes, adding those little bumps and what not just because you are inside the green can look a little articficial, if not present elsewhere on that green site.  Granted, there are too many greens that are too flat in relation to the surrounding contours.

Thus, a well thought out rational for why I and most other modern GCA types prefer long flowing contours as opposed to some busy little (or in the case of Maxwell, busy big) contours in the middle of the greens.

Given the length of this post, I guess I will have to say its just my $0.04 worth.....

[John Kirk]

John Kirk,
   I am interested in how you read greens by walking them. Do you walk along the path the ball will take with your feet parallel to the line? Or do you stop every so often and turn so your feet are perpendicular to the line? The reason I ask is that one of the last things I pay attention to on a putt as I stand over it is what I feel with my feet. I have learned to play more or less break on a putt due to the input from my feet. Apparently Patrick isn't as sophisticated a putter as us.

That's approximately correct.  I only use my feet and sense of balance on shorter putts, maybe up to 15 feet, but especially under 5 feet.  I get behind the ball to see the break.  If I can't see it, I will select a spot outside the line (I believe standing on the line is illegal) and stand perpendicular to the line of play, as we do when we putt.  I think my sense of balance is keen enough to feel my weight leaning slightly forward or back.  It usually works.  Of course, I wouldn't do it if it interfered with a playing partner's putt.

I'd venture a guess that Winged Foot's greens have developed subtle variations in slope from years of sanding, plus the natural settling of the land over time.  Maybe they weren't so tricky way, way back when.  Actually, maybe Patrick knows...

Reading putts with your feet is easy.  Patrick playing basketball in 1985 is far more impressive.  I was more or less done by age 37 or so.  I'd be curious to hear a bit about your basketball career offline, and whether the two hand set shot and the running hook were part of the Mucci repertoire.    

[John Kavanaugh]

Dan Kelly,

Thanks for coming to my defense.  Usually, the line "You have a keen grasp of the obvious" is an insult, but on this board, it puts you in truly elite company.  People are so ready to go off the handle, they don't even read a post before disagreeing with it.

Tommy,

I was in SoCal earlier this month.  They have plenty of pharmacies.  Find one and get some laxatives.

I would respond in more detail to your post, but I it is too far forward in this screen to be viewable in the response screen.  OH, and it doesn't really deserve it anyway.  I don't need a lesson from old books. Believe it or not, I have read them, too, and not just looked at the "purty pictures."  

Now, having dispensed with the seemingly obligatory deragatory statements (I really to need to reread the GCA misson statement.....they must be required..... back to gca commentary.......

RJ, (and others)

If anyone built a green based on those photos it would have some severe scalping problems! Ditto with any built to simulate erosion.  The Old Course greens were built on natural (I presume, no one knows for sure) which in fact were the uneroded areas of the land, no?

Bill McBride,

Call it what you want, and expand top 100 to top 1000 if you want.  Of all the 17,000 golf courses built in the US, if you assume the bell curve theory, less than 10% were ever intended to be great architecture.  Another 10% were probably built to be learning courses or golf factories with no architectural merit intended or sought.  The other 80% have some blend of practical considerations and arcitectural merit.  Which is precisely why this web site has such spirited discussions.

Just so you get the idea of my visions when the words "internal contours" were mentioned I picture little bumps in the green, vs. long slopes tying in from the edges, which could be considered external contours coming into the green.  (semantics, I know, and its possible that some of the disagreements here stem from each of our own personal visions of that phrase)  

For example, while Maxwell did include buried elephants completely in the green, some other midwestern descendants and/or those influenced by his work, generally kept the true high point off the green, and the longer flowing contours - while not flat by any stretch - simply died out one third to one half the way across the green.

IMHO, all are good greens, but just a different style.

In modern times, the idea of an internal mound, bump )Did William Diddell call those diddel bumps?) has gone largely by the wayside because of the loss of cup spaces it causes (I expounded on this earlier this year - You could look it up, but a one foot mound takes out over 300 sf of cup space, which equates to about 5% of the typical green) and the fact that in USGA type greens, the tops tend to dry out and get scalped by mowers.

Thus, when you are responsible for either designing or paying for a course to be designed and then maintained for ever, you just might have a few questions as to whether this type of feature is for you.  If on a budget, adding 5% (or if there are multiple mounds in the green design 15-20% to the size of your greens may incur $70-100K in construction costs.  If it were your money, you might think differently.  At least, most owners trying to provide the sacred cow of "affordable golf" would question it when very few golfers would notice it, there are many great greens without diddle bumps, and a lot of players (for green reading reasons listed above) don't even like them that much.

I come here to share real world perspective for those who care.  That is a very real world perspective.

Going back to Kelly's statement about my "formulas" I was merely pointing out that greens really aren't natural anyway.  They are built on fill pads, or on pads leveled off in hillsides, or whatever.  The actual contouring is usually a result of drainage, following natural slopes, flattening enough area to set a pin, providing back flare ups or false fronts on uphlll holes for better vision, etc.  There are very few times in the real world other than on exceptional sites, where we give a lot of consideration to wind erosion, or the overall character of the ground the green sits on in creating the actual contours.

As to Tommy's example of a wildly contour green that some love, some don't.  From your description, its easy to see it might not be strategic, although I have no qualms about a highly contoured green which in and of itself is the primary feature of the hole.  I don't know how many golf holes I have built, but doing one of those every few years is a nice variety for a designer, and I suspect that is exactly why Bell did it - he did so much work in one area he was simply trying to do something different.

Now let's ask the other question about various bumps regarding strategy.  The long slopes coming in from the outside of the green can influence strategy - players can use them to feed the ball to the hole.  Similarly, a long more or less continuous up slope one direction or another can make the approach from the side of the fw facing that most directly the best angle.  In fact, any long more or less continuous slope (think Redan style holes) ir reliable in how a ball reacts, and thus opens up the basic green strategy to a wider range of players who have mere mortal accuracy.

Can a green with a series of small bumps in the middle be strategic in the same way?  Only a few golfers in the world have the distance and directional control to get it between a few random contours to a pin location.  In most cases, a pretty good shot may be deflected by those internal bumps and ridges away from the pin.  Golfers don't generally like that!  In truth, small doses of that go a long way.

Aesthetically, tying in the slopes from the edges ususally works well on gently rolling land.  Ideally, after flattening the contours enough to be practical, its usually good to grade the green surface and the surrounds to look as if they are one.  Sometimes, adding those little bumps and what not just because you are inside the green can look a little articficial, if not present elsewhere on that green site.  Granted, there are too many greens that are too flat in relation to the surrounding contours.

Thus, a well thought out rational for why I and most other modern GCA types prefer long flowing contours as opposed to some busy little (or in the case of Maxwell, busy big) contours in the middle of the greens.

Given the length of this post, I guess I will have to say its just my $0.04 worth.....

Jeff,

Thank you...That took guts..

[ed_getka]

John Kirk,
   We do it the same way. I have a read in mind when I set up to the ball, but I have learned to trust my feet when they tell me my eyes have underread the break.

Jeff,
   How would you compare the greens you did at Quarry Ridge up in MN to those at Sand Creek Station?

[RJ_Daley]

JK, I aim to please.  Below are a series of photos of the greatest punchbowl I have seen, and I actually see similarities to the forground hollows in the top desert pic.  As for St. Louis cc, I don't know.  

approach:


Scanning left to right through the green complex



back left side


internal contours!


Obviously, there is nothing natural about this punchbowl.  The internal contour is a ridge throught the middle of the green in a Maxwellian roll style that old Perry Duke would have loved.  
Do you see this as the anti-C&C method.  Do you think this looks like it was out of a Sahara desert setting like the photo above?  (I see the setting as similar to the photo)  Is the roll through the middle too randomly random?

All I can say is this is one of the most exciting holes you will find anywhere, or you don't have a pulse!  The internal contour is the frosting on the cake.