Are today’s greens too well thought out?

[Ran Morrissett]

I recently learned that my favorite greens in the southeast of the United States were contoured and seeded in the relatively brief period of two months. These large greens feature humpback ridges and sweeping broad slopes with wild interior contour with the desirable result of having innumerable excellent hole locations on each and every green.

That’s Exhibit A.

Exhibit B is that countless great greens in the UK came into being pre-1920 at a time when the build process was quite quick, at least relative to what we see today. Very few to no architects today are given the opportunity to work with property that would yield the bizarrely wonderful second green at The Old Course or some of the greens at Machrihanish, Westward Ho! and Prestwick. However, is the existence of such greens due solely to superior soil and land? Or is there something to be said for the quickness in which they were built?

All greens have to drain properly and be maintainable – that’s a given. However, does anything in today’s deliberate process of building greens (including owner and green keeper sign off) encourage random interior contours to be born/captured? Infrequently yes, but in general, I don’t think so. The Golden Age tried to get it right without trying to get it perfect. Does the time-consuming quest for perfection of today as demanded by the money at stake have the unintended consequence of taking away from greens that are unique/original? Put another way, without trying to get it exactly right with everything functioning perfectly, would greens be left with a few more maddening hole locations?

In a cruel twist for the architect, the converse is true too. In an effort to look thoughtful, do architects know when to leave well enough alone? What living architect would cap the fifteenth hole at Garden City GC with a simple, ground hugging green on a tilt? Nothing too brainy or complex but it works beautifully. My mind may be poisoned by what is already there but anything else would look contrived and over-thought. Macdonald built some wild ones at NGLA but he knew when to also build a green like the ninth as well. The result is that NGLA’s greens are regarded by many as near the ideal because of their variety, running the gamut from wild interior contours to flat surfaces.

My point? I am confused now too as I seem to have just typed that architects put a) not enough contour as well as b) too much contour into their greens. However, in typical GolfClubAtlas.com Discussion Group fashion  , I valiantly press ahead and return to my original question: are today’s greens (as opposed to this post!) too well thought out?

Cheers,

[Dan Herrmann]

Taking the questions a little further, I wonder how much "fairness" is a factor today - you know, that "It's all right there in front of you" philosophy.

In the effort to be "fair", greens may well be losing some of their former charm and quirkiness.

This is, of course, a generalization.  Some architects continue to produce fantastic green surfaces!

[Ray Richard]

I like the following method-establish a workable subgrade with a few rises and hollows, then kick the shaper off the green. Grab a medium sized aluminum rake and shape the final contour yourself. Keep a laser handy so you know which way the water is running, and keep a burly assistant nearby if you need to push around some dirt by hand. It's amazing what you can create this way. As opposed to micrograded 20 scale prints developed by a junior Cad tech in some cushy office. When you get in the field these greens don't have any spontaneity, they look too mechanical.

[Dan Herrmann]

Ray - is CAD killing the art?

[Tom_Doak]

The art of it was never done on CAD, and still isn't for the most part.

However, Ran does have a point.  Part of it is the thing we've been arguing about in other concurrent threads -- today's architects have to worry about speeds of 10+ on the Stimpmeter, which means every slope has to be checked, instead of just building stuff that looks natural to the eye.  The last step on most greens today is to take steepness out, not to add more in.

Part of it, as Ray says, is the finish work -- golf course contractors pride themselves on taking out the little inconsistencies that Ran likes.

Part of it is that on USGA greens [which dominate but aren't 100% of the work], you aren't supposed to add contour at the end, so once you finish the subgrade the only direction to go is backwards [if you lose some of the little subtleties you'd tried to put in].  The greens that Ran likes so much aren't USGA greens, and neither are some of our best original greens -- Barnbougle, Ballyneal, Pacific Dunes, Lost Dunes.

Really inspired sculpture happens quickly, more often than not.  [Bill Coore's work is an exception.]  The longer process does take its toll.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Any rational, thinking individual is going to slay you for this one! What idiot would argue in favor of using a process that was purposely half assed?!

Today we know with certainty what's great design, what you can't do, the right way to build a course (including the all important drainage question), have experienced professionals who know exactly how to do the job properly, be it designing a green, laying pipe, etc -- now that we have worked out the kinks from process so as to minimize these errors of process that everyone knows should be stomped like the bugs they are, now that we know all that, everybody knows only an idiot would ignore best practice, much less purposely try for a half-assed effort!

MacKenzie recommended hiring the village idiot to handle building and shaping of mounds. (I forget if he mentioned greens for idiot work.)

His reasoning tracking yours.  MacK argued for using nonprofessionals for shaping work in both golf course and military entrenchment construction.

These guys weren't trained to do it the "right" way and so would not do a professional's job of smoothing everything out, creating crisp and clean lines, sharp angles, etc.

The imitation of nature demanded a process that, on the face of it, produced reams of errors: sloppiness, incompleteness, randomness, and conflict. Those "errors" in fact being integral to the quality of the design, the harmony of nature's disharmony.

Mark

[Jason Topp]

How much of the interest on old greens has to do with age?  Have the interesting little contours developed over time?

[Tom_Doak]

Jason:

The aging process is random.  Sometimes you gain things -- sometimes you lose them. 

But, in general, I think it's hard for little contours to develop within a green that weren't there before.  After they topdress a green they drag in the material and that tends to make the green a bit smoother than it was.  Indeed, that's the idea behind topdressing.  But it's got the same effect contour-wise as a contractor finishing a green for too long -- some of the little stuff gets smoothed down to nothing.

[Jason Topp]

This is a distinct but somewhat related thought so I'll add it here.

Recently, I have played a number of Golden Age courses and have marvelled at their quality.  Walking down an undulating fairway last weekend, I was thinking about how, from the 40's through the 90's, the fairway probably would have been bulldozed relatively flat to ease maintenence and standardize the course.  Modern greens also often have the same shortcomings.

In the 20's my impression is that architects did not have that option, because such an effort would have been cost prohibitive.  Nonetheless, Mackenzie at least wrote with great optimism about GCA in the future, believing that with increased earthmoving capability, courses would improve.  His optimism proved wrong, and I have always thought of the change as caused by misguided thinking.

Instead, could it have been luck?  Could it have been that the Golden Age architects were merely lucky to work in an era where their limited earth moving capabilities and imperfect construction techniques resulted in outstanding golf courses?

[Ray Richard]

Dan H-

The plan packages of many top draw architects include detailed green drawings with too many design elevations and contour lines, and this becomes a problem with field staff who are paranoid about exactness during the finish grade process. I think many clients think they are getting a highly refined design and construction drawing for a green,when in fact they are getting a rough conceptual idea, or maybe a false representation of what is actually occuring during the green construction phase. I think many architects develop these green drawings to prove to a client they are getting value for their investment. A better process would be 6 elevations on a green drawing and the notation-Final Green Countour Shape to be Developed on Location
  When you actually perform the fine grade operation by hand, you can see the green contours evolve and merge, and consequently deliver a better product.

[Rick_Noyes]

Jason,

This may be a stretch, but I have experienced it so... People trained to operate heavy equipment are trained to build roads, parking lots and building pads.  All of which are fairly straight and flat.  When you get a guy that has had little or no experience shaping a golf course, you have to stay on top of them and kinda break them of that.

Ran,

I think a lot of the design can be "too thought out".  I personally cannot stand lazer leveled tees.  But I have yet to meet the superintendent that didn't like them.

[Carl Rogers]

Ran,

In Exhibit A, can you give a specific hole or specific course that fits that example?

As I am in related field (I am an architect as in buildings), I conceptually thought this all gets down to how precisely accurate is contour survey.  On most building projects the contour locations are plus or minus a few feet in location.  Can  / do GCA demand in high degree of accuracy of contour surveys?

So in the world of GCA, what is point of spending a lot of time on contour plans, when on site there will be some variation between the drawing and the existing conditions?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Not being a Designer or Architect, my opinion is that we tend to loose sight of what golf actually is. To hit a ball over a strip of land either by the sea or inland until it falls into a small hole (preferably man made). The whole process has just become too complicated and the answer is not to throw larges amounts of money at a piece of land which perhaps in the first place is plainly unsuitable for a course.

Whether instigated by the demand for Golf in the area or simply down to a new development, to design a course on the wrong land is just plain madness. The course is compromised from the start either from the location or the unbelievable money it swallows to make it in the first place. Design and constructing a course in an inhospitable place for Golf must require many additional factors starting with water/drainage, which in itself destroys any original contours that might have been considered worthy of retaining.

The point I am making is that Designers are being forced to compromise the design for construction necessities resulting from unfriendly locations. We have for so long dismissed the early designers as being one day wonders (which I believe is totally incorrect and the result of later designers misunderstand the construction history of their own profession), yet these early Designers produced Greens that today many Designers/Architects would be proud to claim as their. They knew golf, they fully understood the process, their knowledge and eye for the land was paramount, to the extent that some when requested to design an 18 hole course on a specific stretch of land declined suggesting that 9 should be the number holes until additional land was made available for 18 holes. Could they detect the green sites in the natural landscape, I will not comment apart from saying that if they could its part of the design process that has been set aside or lost due to demand and selection of many unsuitable locations.

I have throughout my time at GCA but unwilling to put any blame on any Architect or Designer, because I have not been party to their Clients Brief or Budget requirements for the project. However I will say that I do not believe it good for golf to have to travel any real distance between Green & Tee. This in part proves the land is not Fit for Purpose and the course is based upon compromise – that time and money should have been invested in the Greens, which IMHO I do not think would have been that well thought out. 

[Scott Witter]

Ran,

I think Peter Pollotta will comment here and link it to art and music and for good reason.  I have built greens through detailed drawings and also by 'the seat of my pants' though my pants are educated and experienced enough to not get me in trouble   I have also done drawings and then left them in the truck because subtlties on site showed me to do otherwise.

I have always thought that some of the best music was live as opposed to studio perfection...I really get the artist and their spirit at the time and enjoy the originality of the moment.  The same goes for art.  I draw a lot and for the past fews years, almost all of my work for greens and bunkers are sketches that for me capture the essence of what I am looking for.  The rest can and should honestly be worked out in the field.  I know that every time I sit down to work out ideas, my best work typically falls on my first pass.  The more I labor or try to do something different, it seems to get muddy and overworked...and the original idea becomes watered down.

In general I do think green design is too well thought out.  On the other hand, there are those who have learned one way and tend to stick to it and sometimes it becomes their trademark in some respects.  I really like Melvyn's comment about losing sight.  So much of this also IMO comes down to the affordable issue.  There is a parallel between what Tom is doing and what Melvyn is saying.

Tom says,  "Really inspired sculpture happens quickly, more often than not."  The key word to me is inspired and inspiration doesn't come from a detailed green plan with half foot contours and 23 spot grades. 

There is more I wanted to say and I know I rambled a bit...maybe later

[Bart Bradley]

Hey Ran:

I think the idea is that greens should require a lot of thought to PLAY...and not necessarily to BUILD.  But if you start out with flat ground or a site not well suited to golf, do you have any choice but to put a lot of thought into them?

I suspect that the best greens/holes/courses are discovered more than engineered.  Just my opinion.

Bart

[W.H. Cosgrove]

The art of it was never done on CAD, and still isn't for the most part.

Part of it is the thing we've been arguing about in other concurrent threads -- today's architects have to worry about speeds of 10+ on the Stimpmeter, which means every slope has to be checked, instead of just building stuff that looks natural to the eye.  The last step on most greens today is to take steepness out, not to add more in.

So it isn't CAD that is the problem but mowers and the players who think that speed is everything.  My question becomes; if you build with a lot of contour, ala Sebonac, Pacific, Chambers Bay and the like in modern design, who is left to monitor the superintendent or the green chair who didin't understand the intent when constructed?  

Players talk about speed but the result is big flat boring plates to putt over.  Well thought out or not there seems to be a disconect between what players think they want and the best of what is being built.  How do we get passed that issue?

[Phil_the_Author]

Ran,

I don't think you can generalize on this point. Almost all would agree that Tilly's greens are quite distinctive and challenging. He often would spend a great deal of time making plasticine models of them for the construction workers to use to assure the finished contours that he wanted. This certainly invovled thought and time.

On other occasions, his green sketches give remarkable details. For example, there is a wonderful skecth of a green that Tilly gave as a gift to a friend. Among the details in the handwritten notes that cover it are the following:

1- You should anticipate 8 inches of good, clean top soil. Of course the final character of the greens contours will be worked out by me personally on the ground.
2- "O" present front grade
3- 1 foot higher in center
4- "+2" left rear
5- "+2&1/2" right rear
6- Outside right edge of green to be contoured naturally

There are also a number of other details written that deal with green drainage directions, sand in bunker faces meeting rough lines, rugged sand dunes tying into the back left of the green and more.

From a number of sketches that Wayne has shared on different threads, it would seem that flynn was quite meticulous in both prearation and planning and finished details; all required thought and time.

[Art Roselle]

Didn't Mackenzie make a humorous point along these lines, stating that the best method might be from the green shaper who said, "he simply employed the biggest fool in the village and told him to make them flat.”

I know that was tongue-in-cheek, but I think his point is partly in line with Ran's idea.  The other implication that I take from that quote is that subtle undulations are often preferable to dramatic and obvious ones.  A green that appears flat but isn't is often the toughest to putt.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Ran -  are you implying that desirable quirk is only possible by chance rather than design?

In some ways you’re right  - but on a mundane site where no quirk exists it is necessary to create it in order to become it. Not necessarily design it - but create the circumstances where it can happen.

I’ve noticed that it’s important to create radical changes in elevation to allow for the oppurtunity of quirk.

It’s also important to be on the site as the shaping is taking place - then one can react quickly and leave spontaneous incongruities that have interest and merit - I also find that a good knowledge of existing quirk (scottish links) goes a long way to accepting spontaneous quirk that under normal judgement would be ironed out.

The choice of machine can have an influence - an excavator can accidently create quirk more often than a dozer.

Also interesting green movements only happen when one remains “on top of it” from the shaping to the finishing - and restricting or avoiding the dreaded “steel mat”  …..

So I don’t think “over-thinking” or “over supervision” restrict quirk - in fact the opposite. More important is to have an inquisitive mind to discover it and then be courageous enough to let it happen - often in the face of the “nay-sayers”.

[John Burzynski]

Just a layman's simple perspective here, but if more money were invested into the design and thought about a course's greens by the golf course owner's and developers, and less into length and the other spurious 'wow' factors, I'll bet a course would attract many more golfers of all ages. 

Undulations and challenge on the greens are a major attractant to all golfers, new and experienced alike.  Everyone stands a fighting chance of sinking a 50 foot putt...not so much everyone having the opportunity to drive a ball 300 yards.  Greens are the great evener in the sport, thus they should be well thought out, and at the same time a bit whimsical.

[tlavin]

My answer to the specific query would be:  Yes, if one overvalues quirk and is distrustful of modern technology.

[David Kelly]

One of my favorite greens at Rustic Canyon is #9 which reminds me of no other green I have ever seen and the story goes that the green was discovered with the contours as they are now, staked out and then grassed.  While the green offers plenty of great pin positions there are a few areas that would have likely been changed or softened  by someone in an effort to remove any "unfairness". 

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD has it right.   

In addition to green speed, add in cup space requirements.  Every little bump is a pin placement gone way.

Add in low mowing height not only because of speed, but cutting quality. I know supers who don't like chocolate drop mounds outside of greens because they can't get a "perfect cut". Little bumps on greens are similar - its hard to get a perfect cut on little slope "imperfections."

One of the reasons a Doak, or formerly a Dye, stands out is that in most cases, design becomes a game of "List all the things we can't do for one reason or another, and we'll see what we can do with what options are left."  Of course, even the most creative free spirit gets bogged down along the way and slowly adopts more and more rules, or has them imposed upon him. 

How many Owners have said "I want a course better than your last, however, I need you to do just a few things for me?"

Answer: A lot.

[cary lichtenstein]

In 2 words, "Speed kills"

[Paul_Turner]

In a cruel twist for the architect, the converse is true too. In an effort to look thoughtful, do architects know when to leave well enough alone? What living architect would cap the fifteenth hole at Garden City GC with a simple, ground hugging green on a tilt?

Ran

I think that's true,  you almost never see simple lay of the land greens that tilt.  Perhaps the 10th and 12th at Pacific Dunes are good examples of relatively simple modern greens. 

UK examples that I like:  2nd at Addington and 3rd at Whittington Heath.

But in general, internal contour is in vogue and some old UK and European courses are having their "lay of the land" greens dug up and contour added.