[Mark_Fine]

Bill,
Agreed about the green speed restraint.  Unfortunately that rarely happens.  

Andy,
I just read those comments about the greens.  The greens "defend" par but so what.  Just to be clear, in my mind it has nothing to do with "fairness" as I hate that word when it comes to golf.  The game was not meant to be fair but when you start introducing all kinds of goofy slopes and contour that don't tie into anything and are done just to make it hard, it doesn't always work for me.  

RJ,
I'll play the course soon to draw a more educated opinion but from what I saw on TV, I don't think the "right tee" selection will matter too much.  The greens are the greens and know matter where you play you still have to deal with them to get the ball in the hole.  

Mark

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
Our posts passed in cyber space.  I would argue that greens don't need to have buried elephants and refrigerators all over them to take a lifetime to learn.  The Flynn greens at my home course (and on his courses in general) are just one example.  Flynn relied more on subtle contour in his greens that tied in with the surrounds.  They are baffling even after you've played them hundreds of times. 

I don't think anyone (even the pros who are hung up on fairness) are suggesting flat greens.  Ogilvy seems to get it when it comes to golf architecture and even he thought the greens were ____ 
Mark

[Bill_McBride]

I don't know how Ogilvie could have anything negative to say about those greens.    He was 25 under for the 66 holes he played Saturday and Sunday while winning 3 matches handily!

[Tim Nugent]

Interesting discussion.  First, on Jack's style evolution, I feel that his style evolved as different journeyman architects filed through his firm.  He took a bit from each.  This is tempered against the guys who have been there for a long time - Jim Lipe, Chris Cochran, etc. so things don't change overnight.

I think that pretty much all architects are looking to something a bit different from their last effort.  Can you imagine how stale life would be if you were chief designer for McDonalds?

Jack has been beating the drum against equipment for quite a while.  Even with an obscenely long (mid-7,000's) I feel he felt that the pro's would tear it up unless he made the greens Augusta-like.  It really must have been tough for pros to putt on single-digit greens.  It's easier to be accurate if you don't have to take a backswing w/your putter. Its also the easiest way to "toughen up" a course for a tourney because all you have to do is change the mower heights.  Aren't Augusta's green single digit for member play?

Jeff B's probably right that club members would like the huge contours because they keep the course interesting over time.  Although the super probably hates them because they are harder and more expensive to maintain.
That's probably the main reason more architiects don't do rollercoasters - if the super ends up with dry knobs and wet valleys - it's the architects fault. Also, the more contour in the greens, the bigger they need to be as a larger percentage are essentially unpinnable.  I found that (as Mark Fine illustrates) that subtile greens coutours can be frustrating because so much depends on the speed of the green.  A putt a 8-9 might not break but will at 11.  Also, rollercoasters allow everyone to see the breaks, subtile greens require the skill to read the green (how many times have you heard or uttered "I thought it went the other way"?)

The opposite side of the coin is the Pebble Beach model of very small greens but these are harder for average golfers to hit.  But the pros like them because they reward accurate shots and luck isn't a factor.

Of course when you are looking at the budgets of a JN course, this (hand watering of the muffins) isn't really that much of an issue - they probably even have a horticulturist just to do the clubhouse flowers.

[Andy Troeger]

Mark,
I tend to agree with your comments--and found Ogilvy's comments to be the most interesting. I certainly don't vote for flat greens, but looking at the course as a hole those greens look a bit extreme for normal play with golfers hitting approaches with longer clubs and from longer yardages in some cases. The pros turned that course, along with everywhere else they play, into a drive, pitch, and putt. Ogilvy's scoring the final day was remarkable but shows the dramatic difference between the pros and even single digit handicaps.

I like a lot of Nicklaus design's stuff over the years--I do think their most recent efforts forget about the people who will actually be playing their courses most of the time though. Its hard to tell though on TV--I'd like to see the course for myself eventually because the course certainly appears to be very strategic and have a lot of good components to it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,
Our posts passed in cyber space.  I would argue that greens don't need to have buried elephants and refrigerators all over them to take a lifetime to learn.  The Flynn greens at my home course (and on his courses in general) are just one example.  Flynn relied more on subtle contour in his greens that tied in with the surrounds.  They are baffling even after you've played them hundreds of times. 

I don't think anyone (even the pros who are hung up on fairness) are suggesting flat greens.  Ogilvy seems to get it when it comes to golf architecture and even he thought the greens were ____ 
Mark

Mark,

Personally, I like the long flowing lines of Flynn greens rather than the Maxwell muffins, or even the Doak/CC mirco contours.  Their strength is that you CAN read putts whereas whenever their is a mound in the green, its much harder.  That is not to say that its easy to read a Flynn green.  As Tim N points out, greens vary in speed so its never the same even if you had the exact same putt.

I would also argue that you get more putting variety with gentle rolls over muffins.  With a muffin in the middle of the green any putt affected by it is the same kind of putt and its often terrifying and impossible to read.  With a gently rolling green all over, it takes the exact same putting line and pin combo to replicate a putt, and even then it isn't - see above.  And for most, it comes off as a test of golf skill whereas muffins are - as noted in that article - often likened to goofy/miniature golf.

Its an interesting philospophical debate. When so many of us are par challenged anyway, and a birdie would literally make our day, is it the gca's job to defend par at the green, or provide a birdie challenge with an aggressive putt?  In reality, for all but a few golfers, providing a chance to putt for birdie is more appreciated and gently rolling greens do that best, without giving it away and making it too easy.

[Chuck Brown]

Interesting, in Andy Troeger's link to the SI.com golf page, Michael Bamberger is quoted;

"Jack Nicklaus, the course designer, has of course done a lot of great things in golf. This Dove Mountain course, in my opinion, is not one of them."

I wonder what Bamberger has deemed as among the lots of "great" Nicklau Design courses, if not Dove Mtn.

I understand that the Dove Mtn. greens 'Stimped' at 10.5.  And that by all accounts, that speed is painfully slow for tour pros.  And the reason they had them slowed to that pace was that the green surfaces were so severe.  That was what was said in any case.  Does anybody ever get a golf course that has only been open for six weeks up to 11 or 12 on the Stimpmeter?

I know what 10.5-Stimp greens are like.  They aren't slow.  Tom Doak -- what is 10.5 like at Crystal Downs?  I do think tour pros like ultra fast greens insofar as ultra-fast usually also represents ultra-perfect, and mostly flattish.  

[Tim Nugent]

Jeff, you know the only way that a muffin works is on big greens which allow enough room aside the muffin to be flat enough to pin.  Since most courses don't pin any closer to the collar than 9'-12' this leans we would require a muffin to be at least 20-30' into the green (depending on the height of the muffin and it's radiating slope).  Hence, their main purpose is to divide greens into sections.  IMO, I think this is a big waste of money - both to construct and to maintain.

Personally, I tend to favor a majority of the green to be pinnable with the outside (non-pinnable) +/-12' to carry heavier contours that can tie-into bolder green surrounds contours and feed into off-green collection areas.
Much of this stems from a pace of play observation.  If a golfer spends 30 seconds lining up each putt, that's 2 minutes per putt for 4-some.  If the average golfer has 36 putts per round, that's over an hour spent on the greens.  The "miss by a little, miss by a lot" nature of rollercoaster greens can add to the length of a round.  Nothing pisses a golfer off more than sitting in each fairway, waiting for the green ahead to clear.

[Mark_Fine]

Kelly,
Maybe baffle is the wrong word or maybe you are a much better putter than most of us    Subtle green contours usually allow most golfers to get the ball close to the hole, but actually making the putts is another matter.  A slight change in green speed can have a significant impact on break and rollout on such greens. 

Again, my real question was how important is the "defense of par" by using crazy green contours and does that make the golf course better?  I would say that just as an architect would use of any design feature, if they are not overused or overdone, they can be great.  Some just go off the chart (Dove Mountain seemed like an example) and I can't imagine that is fun for long for most golfers.
Mark

[Bill_McBride]

Kelly,
Maybe baffle is the wrong word or maybe you are a much better putter than most of us    Subtle green contours usually allow most golfers to get the ball close to the hole, but actually making the putts is another matter.  A slight change in green speed can have a significant impact on break and rollout on such greens. 

Again, my real question was how important is the "defense of par" by using crazy green contours and does that make the golf course better?  I would say that just as an architect would use of any design feature, if they are not overused or overdone, they can be great.  Some just go off the chart (Dove Mountain seemed like an example) and I can't imagine that is fun for long for most golfers.
Mark

Mark, there has been some debate about the greens that Richardson guy designed at Peacock Gap.  Have you seen those? 

[Mark_Fine]

Bill,
Yes several times during construction and after grown in.  They are definitely wild or should I say "controversial".  I believe that Forrest felt he didn't have a lot to work with topo-wise and was constrainted in several ways with the inherited routing.  His way of making the course unique was those greens.  Time will tell what reception they get as the course ages.
Mark

[tlavin]

I watched a fair amount of the play from Dove Mountain and all I kept thinking was: "Nicklaus is sublimating Tom Doak".  And now I see this thread.  I'm not kidding, when I looked at all of the internal contouring of the greens and some of the bunkering, it seemed like Jack's crew had spent some time at Lost Dunes, where Tom really got jiggy with it on the greens.  I'm not all that conversant with desert golf architecture and I haven't played a lot of the best out Southwest, but this course is definitely getting on the list. 

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,
Yes several times during construction and after grown in.  They are definitely wild or should I say "controversial".  I believe that Forrest felt he didn't have a lot to work with topo-wise and was constrainted in several ways with the inherited routing.  His way of making the course unique was those greens.  Time will tell what reception they get as the course ages.
Mark

There has definitely been some pro and con.  I am in the strongly "pro" camp as I thought Forrest's strategy was really good - juice up the course with wild greens - and the execution also really good.  My one round there was a real eye opener.

It would be interesting to poll the members a year later and see how they feel about those greens.  I suspect they will be more favorable as time goes by, as the  factor will eventually wear off, but not the    factor!

[Kyle Henderson]

Matt Cohn:


Frankly, I prefer the name T.J. Doaklaus to Jack Nickldoak.


And I hate that stupid feel-good name "The Ritz Carlton Dove Canyon" course. I think they should rename it "Varmint Gultch at the Ritz" and attribute the design style of it thusly; By the Nicklaus Co. with some seriously blatant architectural plagarism from the Doak Renaissance Design Co.

Thank you for refraining from jokes about Mr. Dicklaus.

That would be in poor taste.

[john_stiles]

Watched some of the tourney.  Looked like they used the same hammer eighteen times with respect to the greens.    Seemed like a lot of small tight features used on and around the greens.    Maybe it isn't so once you get on  the ground and play it.   

But I'd agree that the course looks like it would be fun to play.

[Tom_Doak]

Periodically, someone on this board asks me if it's important to me to build a course that hosts a professional tournament.  I always say no, and no one wants to believe me.

The past week's event is precisely why.  I haven't seen the course on the ground, so I don't really know if I'd like it or not; but from what I saw on TV, it looked interesting, it tested the players well, there were some great shots in the semifinal and final matches, and it looked like the guy who played best, won the event.  What more could an architect want?

And yet, there are a lot of players moaning about the course, and there are guys on here espousing their preference for subtle greens, and blah, blah, blah.  And that's with JACK NICKLAUS designing the course.  If I had designed the course, some great professional [perhaps even Jack! ] would package all the same criticisms as how I was never a great player so I don't understand shot values, and blah, blah, blah.  So, really, can anyone tell me why would I care to be involved with all of that?

P.S. to Mark Fine:  When I made my comment earlier about the green contours "defending par," I was saying that's why Jack Nicklaus has adopted a stronger approach to contouring greens.  That's not why I like contoured greens ... I like them because they can be a lot of fun to play, and they present a lot of cool short-game shots as well as approach shots.  [My perspective would maybe be different if I hit 15 greens per round like you and Jack, but of course, most people don't.]  Jack doesn't really build anything with fun in mind, so I think our application of contour is somewhat different.  The only course I've seen of Jack's since Sebonack is Dismal River, and there were not many greens there that looked like I might have built them.

I can tell you all this ... none of those greens this weekend were anything like the 18th green at Old Macdonald!  I hope it survives Mr. Keiser's walk-through tomorrow.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I'm glad to hear that your intent is not to build wild green contours primarily for the purpose of defending par.  Your post, at least to me, was not clear on that. 

The main point I was getting at with my posts was that it appeared to me that all the wild contour in those greens at Dove Mountain (only from TV obseration) was not added to make the course more fun to play.  Therein lies the difference in the design (or at least the design intent) of heavily contoured greens. 
Mark

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()