[Jim Thompson]

Done a little reading this morning and maybe we should cover this.  How do you all see it coming down?  Can a simple green be made interesting by its surrounds or complex and can an interesting green be ruined by a featureless surround?  Consider both in terms of playability and visual impact and consider how to achieve a maximum synergy?

[TEPaul]

Jim:

In this vein I don't think I've ever been quite so interested in what I heard the other day from Mark Parsinen and his guys from the new Hanse Co's Castle Stuart in Scotland that will open in 2009. They tried really hard to design in maximum options surrounding most of the greens.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jim,
Size matters. A small, simple green can be challenging if the surrounds are complex but I don't think a large, simple green has a chance, no matter the surround.     

I don't know if the intersection of the two factors can be established, but once I get up to about a 20' putt that has no break and isn't rolling down some treacherous incline, I lose interest.

[RJ_Daley]

I think the greens surrounds are one of the two or three most important parts of the design. 

A simple green can be made interesting by a surrounds of anything from dramatic to subtle contouring, and varied maintenance meld.  I know of a course where the owner and archie got into a disagreement with the notion that "some" of the surrounds should be cut to fringe height where the contours lead to interesting surrounds chipping collection areas (ala Rossonian philosophies).  The archie in that case was all about an even and consistant fringe of one pass and rough collar, unvaried.  The owner wanted to fringe mow in some areas of interesting contour leading to creation of the collection hollows, etc.  I think the owner demonstrated more sense than the archie in that case, and he did so with great results and higher golf interest, IMO. 

I have always said that personally, I like Wild Horse even more than Sand Hills on that point, specifically because the surrounds are wider and more interesting, with more room for options and integral surrounds contouring tied into green contours.  (now that I haven't been to SHGC in about 4 or 5 years, maybe my memory is fading, or they have widened the mowing surrounds there, but my impression remains such).

One thinks about Rustic Canyon 12 and its surrounds as how integral apparent subtle surrounds effect green play. 

It all depends on the art of the shaping of these surrounds and greens.  Dramatic can be good or devolve into containment or "Reeses Pieces"

Subtle can be designed to play dramatic.  It all depends on design, turf species, and maintenance meld philosophy. 

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have long felt the the greens complexes make for the most interesting part of the game.   In reality the drive just sets up the shot to the green.  It is important fut not necessarily to hit that shot great.  Shots around the green is where golf comes alive.  The surrounds have so many available options: undulating ground. long rough, closely shaved grass, sand bunkers, grass bunkers water, sandy waste area, different grasses and others that don't come to mind.  Couple these with interestingly shaped and slope greens and the game comes alive with possibilities for success of failure.

[RJ_Daley]

Tommy W., I like that phrase, "golf comes alive".  I fully agree with you. 

Just look at what seems to be a prevalent modern golf theory of how to play, by the pros.  "Bomb and gouge"   They seemingly don't care where they hit it off the tee (excepting hazards of water), just how far they get it down range to get anything < 8-I in their hands for an approach shot.   With that mentality, you can only challenge and make them think on the approach, with surrounds playing an intergral role in their approach considerations. 

[Joe Hancock]

It's already being stated by you gents, in terms of shaping/ contour/ grassing/ firmness, etc., but the primary issue for making someone utilize the surrounds is to give the golfer a reason to not aim at the green, whether it be an approach shot or a greenside recovery shot.

If the green is soft, there is almost no reason to utilize surrounds.

Joe

[Peter Pallotta]

Joe - nice post.

Jim - If I can't see all the green from the approach area, the green/surround is working well enough for me.  If the green and its surrounds are simple and elegant, and if you surprise me with a single bunker and that in an unexpected/unusual place, that's a bonus.

I'm staring at green complexes for more time than I'm staring at anything else during a round, so if I'm not inclined to want to see the architect's 'hand' anywhere on the course, that sure goes for the green complexes too.

Peter

[Sean_A]

I was just sorting through some pix and noticed this thread.  Over and over I read about contoured greens being the focus of what a good green is.  As one who doesn't assess the quality of the green without placing it in relation to its surrounds and the demands required for the approach I found thread interesting especially the comment about putts being over 20 feet and fairly straight.  I immediately thought of several greens at Woodhall Spa which I believe to be of interest despite their flatness.  Because of their flatness it can often be very difficult to tell where the pin is and how that effects a bump in or aerial shot.  This is one reason why I am dead set against yardage guns etc.  Most will gush about the use of bunkering to to deceive, when if truth be told, a flat green that gently slides away from the fairway can be a dickens to figure especially if the view of the green is obscured.  I didn't have any pics of Woodhall handy so I am posting the 18th of Burnham.  The fairway and surrounds are a tumbling heave of dunes.  The view of the  green is somewhat obscured, it can be difficult to figure out the best shot to hit. 






The green site is apparently quite flat and fits the surrounds wonderfully.  There is an odd juxtaposition of leaving a tumbling dune area of a fairway to a flat green, but it works.  If folks found this greensite boring I reckon I am looking for different things when it comes to golf design.


Ciao

[Andy Levett]

That's a great set of B&B 18 pix. From memory, the first two do the hole a favour and the last does it an injustice.

But, really, you hit that green and what's wrong with having a chance of a birdie or probability of a par?

There seems an obsession on this site with 'interesting' greens but a few go a long way.

If a small target has challenging surrounds your one or two-putt is well-earned. But, then again, I wish I knew a course (outside TOC) with a hole like Short at Old Macdonald...

As Aristotle almost said, it's all about balance.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Can a simple green be made interesting by its surrounds or complex and can an interesting green be ruined by a featureless surround? 

I believe that a simple green can be interesting regardless of surrounds, ie GCGC, and
that a simple green can be made interesting by it's surrounds. ie # 7 at PBGC.

I think it's site, green and surround specific.[/color]

and can an interesting green be ruined by a featureless surround? 

No, I don't think that an interesting green can be ruined by featureless surrounds[/color]

Consider both in terms of playability and visual impact and consider how to achieve a maximum synergy?


I don't know that maximum synergy is an inherent and/or a cost effective goal, architecturally, visually and in terms of playability.[/color]

[Sean_A]

That's a great set of B&B 18 pix. From memory, the first two do the hole a favour and the last does it an injustice.

But, really, you hit that green and what's wrong with having a chance of a birdie or probability of a par?

There seems an obsession on this site with 'interesting' greens but a few go a long way.

If a small target has challenging surrounds your one or two-putt is well-earned. But, then again, I wish I knew a course (outside TOC) with a hole like Short at Old Macdonald...

As Aristotle almost said, it's all about balance.

Andy

I spose I find interest in greens that aren't necessarily terribly exciting.  Often times, these grade level greens just niggle at ya because many can't be read.  The player has to pay attention to the surrounds.  Its one of my biggest beefs about many modern greens - they can seem to go against the grain.  Thats fine once or twice on a course, but too much of greens not making sense with the surrounds completely turns me off.  I can show another example from Burnham which irritates me.  The more I think about it, the more it bugs me.  The green site is magnificent, but the archie has divorced the green from its surrounds unnecessarily. The all carry target is quite small in winter wind.  The dune on the right which is the lynchpin for the green has been cut off by a small swale near the front right of the green.  I don't know if the swale is natural, but it matters not.  That bugger cause havoc as the player has little chance to use the dune when the wind is kicking up.  I am fairly confident that a Golden Age archie wouldn't not have been so severe. 


Below is another green, the 6th.  It too is very severe.  Notice the spine running into the green creating drop offs on either side.  This is the most hated green by the membership.  It also happens to be the newest green.  However, I don't have a problem with the green because there are opportunities for an up and down and it makes sense when you survey the area. 



I am not saying its easy to get up and down, but it is doable even if holding the green is nearly impossible when conditions are keen.

Ciao

[Mike Bowline]

Sean: why is the 6th green the most hated? Is it because it is the most difficult? or most contrived? or what?

IMO, I like a green with a spine running through it. Miss it on the wrong side and a penalty is paid of having an up-and-over putt that can be difficult to two putt. Hit oyur approach on the propoer side of the spine and you probably have an uphill putt - easire to two putt and/or make it. I like it once or twice in 18 holes.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Sean,
It looks to me that none of the greens in any of the photos you posted are of the type I was referring to when I said that about 20' putts. They all have some movement in them, even the most simple one shown in the last photo of your first set.

The photo of the 'hated' 6th green is more to what I getting at. It 'works' in simple surrounds because it has a complex surface. Flatten it out and all you'd have is a boring pancake.

[Sean_A]

Sean: why is the 6th green the most hated? Is it because it is the most difficult? or most contrived? or what?

IMO, I like a green with a spine running through it. Miss it on the wrong side and a penalty is paid of having an up-and-over putt that can be difficult to two putt. Hit oyur approach on the propoer side of the spine and you probably have an uphill putt - easire to two putt and/or make it. I like it once or twice in 18 holes.

Mike

Its the same ole same ole.  The members are like anybody, they want predictability and "fairness".  To some degree I understand it, because a lot of people are hitting wood into this green much of the time.  However, its the only green on the course like this and I don't mind the idea of having to sneak up on a par 4 that is easily reachable once in a while. 

Jim

Only the 18th was mentioned in reference to your beef.  To be honest, I haven't experienced many flatter greens than 18 at Burnham.  Sure, the green moves a few feet from front to back, but there is virtually no internal contour. 

Ciao

[cary lichtenstein]

I think you need to add "how the grass is maintained around the green as well"

Augusta for example has perfect grass, allowing for well struck shots turn out well.

If you made the grass long and grass gnarly, you could add 2 strokes aside.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Sean,
After looking at other photos of Burnham and Berrow's championship course, like the 3rd.....

or the 5th....

or the 8th.....

or the 9th.....


the 18 green must be somewhat of a letdown. If you don't think that the existing green (as you presented it) would be 'improved' by a wee bit more complexity in its surround, or that a more complex green on such a flat site would offer a more fulfilling challenge, especially at the end of the round, then so be it.   

[Sean_A]

Sean,
After looking at other photos of Burnham and Berrow's championship course, like the 3rd.....

or the 5th....

or the 8th.....

or the 9th.....


the 18 green must be somewhat of a letdown. If you don't think that the existing green (as you presented it) would be 'improved' by a wee bit more complexity in its surround, or that a more complex green on such a flat site would offer a more fulfilling challenge, especially at the end of the round, then so be it.   

Jim

Generally speaking, Burnham's greens aren't overly contoured and its probably for the best as many would become unplayable in 30mph winds.  There are the few obvious exceptions with 16 being a doozy.


The pic of #3 doesn't show that it is a serious bowl green - again with a unique surround of a double dip short of the green which really makes the hole.


The more difficult aspect of Burnham are the surrounds for getting up and down.  It isn't a matter of improving 18 green with more movement for me.  I accept and welcome the variety and styles of greens including some flat ones especially if they run front to back. 

I spose in a way, perhaps I believe, at least on some level that surrounds of a green are more important than the green itself - at least on a course with plenty of wind and sandy turf.

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()