Mike,
Here are two columns from my Cybergolf that may give some insight. In re-reading the columns, there are a few points that might inspire a mulligan, but overall it captures some of the considerations that we face:
“My club's greens are much higher than the fairways. When I miss, my shots roll down a slope, recovery is difficult, and my score – and blood pressure – rise! Can we lower the greens?”
Elle,
If your club's name contains the words creek, valley or river, if you see a creek or river on the property, or your clubhouse has a picture of the "great flood of 19XX," your course lies partly in a floodplain, where laws limit structures to minimize economic loss. Golf greens have value, so your architect probably raised them to reduce damage by floods and silt deposits.
Engineers (the calculator kind, not train runners) determine flood levels, using computer programs that I don't understand. When engineers aren't available, I estimate flood levels, using less accurate methods I do understand, such as looking at flood insurance maps, at the land (where broad, flat areas border streams, ending at a steeper bank, which is the approximate flood limit) or railroad and highway bridges, which are usually above flood levels.
Engineers describe flood levels in terms of 10-, 25-, 50- and 100-year storms. In any year, floodwaters have a 10%, 4%, 2% and 1% chance, respectively, of reaching those particular levels.
Golf course architects usually raise greens to 50 or 100-year flood protection, tees to 25- or 10-year levels, and fairways to 2- to 10-year levels, if we have enough fill material. Some tees and fairways have no defense against floods.
Compensatory storage regulations prevent increasing drainage downstream from its natural condition, further limiting how much we can fill. We must provide as much flood storage capacity by cutting as much earth (usually to build lakes) in floodplains as add while building mounds, bunkers, tees and greens.
Attaining exact flood protection is not critical, as flooding every 49 years isn't much different from every 50. We also balance the problems of everyday difficulty – which you encountered – versus the periodic rebuilding, knowing that clubs typically rebuild greens on a 12- to 15-year schedule. Raising greens for maximum flood protection probably delays, but not avoids rebuilding your greens.
Even on upland portions of your golf course, the elevation of the greens probably has more to do with construction expediency than design philosophy.
In gently rolling topography, greens fit most naturally, cost least to construct, and disrupt fewer trees, if built near the vertical middle of gentle slopes. This is the 12th at The Legend Course at Giants Ridge, in Biwabik, Minn.
Greens built midway up (say 5 of the 10 feet) gentle up-slopes, allow construction with bulldozers, balancing earth cuts and fills right on site, rather than hauling additional fill from elsewhere, as is the case in the floodplain greens. From a playability standpoint, only one side or the other will be substantially lower than the green elevation, which you can figure in your shot strategy.
The 3rd green at Springhouse Golf Club at Opryland, in Nashville, Tenn., sits in the floodplain astride the Cumberland River. We elevated this short par-3 green above 100-year flood levels, using fill from the wetland created just in front of the green, which also provides compensatory flood storage.
Part 2:
Construction practicality, trends, course type and conditions, and individual approach shots influence green elevation. When I started golfing in 1967, many courses advertised their "elevated greens" in the phone book. I think this meant to connote advantages of professional design (contrasted with "mom-and-pop" courses) and difficulty, since golfers and golf rankings then equated difficulty with quality.
Elevated greens are difficult, effectively presenting smaller targets, and rejecting shots, while low greens accept them. Bunkers are deeper, side slopes kick shots down to a difficult recovery pitch.
Elevated greens were a trend in the 1960s, but like skirt length, these trends go up and down! Early Scots placed greens on small plateaus. In varying U.S. climates, architects built them in small hollows to collect rainfall. With early irrigation systems, they elevated them slightly for drainage, and still more by 1960 to counteract increasingly skilled golfers. By 1980 public courses dominated, and we built greens lower to collect shots, and speed play. The trend is still towards lower greens, which provide increased creativity (read: fun) and shot-making options, and wheelchair access to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
The typical green is probably slightly elevated above the fairway, which allows:
• Surface drainage;
• Sunlight and air movement;
• The green's visibility and visual importance as the ultimate target;
• Bunker depth and visibility; and
• Construction of surrounding berms to hold shots near the green.
When considering shot values and variety, green elevations should vary considerably. Shorter approach shots may have – but don't need – higher greens, while longer approaches need lower greens. The ROBOT (Rule, Often Broken, Of Thumb) I use is: 1 foot above the fairway per approach iron – i.e., 5 feet above fairway level for an average 5-iron shot, 9 feet for a 9-iron.
This allows average players to roll longer approach shots on the green. As hazards are usually deeper on higher greens, it creates proportionally stiffer penalties for missing with short irons.
Green elevation depends largely on individual green sites, as some sites demand certain elevations for flood plain, visibility, or slope requirements. Where flexible, we generally – but not always – vary green elevations by:
• Course type, lowering greens on municipal courses.
• Wind velocity and direction, lowering greens on heavily windy sites and upwind holes, where a player is likely to try a lower shot to the green; raising them on gently downwind holes, where players may fly a high, soft shot to the green.
• Hole type, creating different shot types among par-3, short par-4, and par-5 holes, but keeping greens low on long par-4s.
• Consecutive holes for distinct sequence.
• Green size, raising oversized (for their shot length) greens, lowering undersized ones.
• Hazards, often lowering greens with severe or surrounding hazards.