[Sean_A]

Reading the Seminole/CP thread I was struck by Doak's comment; "Does Calusa Pines really have a great set of greens?  Because that's the missing element on 90% of modern courses."

It got me to thinking what do folks think of when they think of great greens?  Presumably Doak thinks of some of his own courses when thinking of great greens, but I have never seen a Doak.  I think he believes Pinehurst has great greens, something I am not sold on because I believe the end result for a miss is too scripted and predictable.  I also believe Doak thinks the greens of Oakland Hills are great.  I can get on board with this even though I generally tend to prefer lower key greens with the odd freak and flat one chucked in.  But Ross generally had a predictability to his greens which you knew had places (generally high of the hole) which were dead.    

What do you lot think of as great greens - as a set?  Why?  

Ciao

[JNC Lyon]

Variety, variety, variety. 

Some greens should be pitched towards the golfer.  Others should be pitched away from the golfer.  Some should feature tiers.  Some should feature random contours.  Others should have one dominant slope that follows the land.  Some should be draped over the land like a rug.  Others should be built up from their surrounds.  I want to see all of these features within 18 holes.

The greens should be designed so that the holes on which they are set play differently from day to day.

Furthermore, the golfer should have to hit a wide variety of recovery shots from around the greens.  A golfer should have a full command of the pitch and run, the high flop, and everything in between to succeed around the greens.

Most of all, the golfer should be encouraged to think around the greens.  The golfer needs to plan shots perfectly to get them close to the hole.

I think a truly great set of greens is extremely difficult to plan out in a design.  I remember something Mike Nuzzo said about Oakmont in a Feature Interview.  He stated that Oakmont was appealing because it was not sculpted or molded or meticulously planned.  It is just there.  I think the same thing applies to a great set of greens.  If the greens as a set appear planned, they lose their unpredictability and appeal.

To me, this is the most appealing thing about Merion.  The green sites are so different from hole to hole.  The 5th, 7th and 16th greens could be on completely different golf courses.  They present different visual elements and different short game challenges.  Yet they harmonize and work together as a set.  This is why Merion is the best course I have seen to date.

[Tom MacWood]

But Ross generally had a predictability to his greens which you knew had places (generally high of the hole) which were dead.    

Is that true with all heavily sloped greens kept at reasonable speeds?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Great topic, really among the best ever here!

I tend to agree with JNC Lyon.  And obviously, the wide variety of design concepts need to be put in the right places - that three tier elevated green at the end of a 520 yard par four might be a nice idea for a green in the wrong place.

Others seem to disagree with the variety concept, thinking that a course should be a "small green" course or "contoured green" course, etc.  I wonder what the difference between "great greens" (singular) and a "great set of greens" and a "great collection of greens" might be in the minds of most?  

A set implies some unity or theme, whereas the phrase collection implies a lot of good ideas that don't necessarily tie together as a whole.

Lastly, there needs to be some discussion of the time element on green greatness.  Are the Riviera greens, once so very big and with shape, but now grown in and smaller, better now or worse now with the evolutionary changes they have had?  Are those sloping Ross greens better now that they are more terrifying because of green speed or were they better when they putted at a speed they were designed for?

[Joe Hancock]

I like what Jeff B. wrote in his last line.

Variety is important, but also important is the creation of an atmosphere. Many golden age courses have a certain atmosphere, or feel, because of the green complexes. Thinking of Pinehurst #2, those greens are all about getting in your head early, and being a theme, to use Jeff B.'s term.

Variety, atmosphere and challenge in a way that works well in the setting are important aspects of great greens.

Joe

EDIT(Because Jeff B. editted!): It was Jeff's second to the last paragraph that I liked, particularly.....

[PCCraig]

To me one way to distinguish a "great" set of greens is if when standing on the tee, the location of the pin and the contouring of the greensite dictates how I will (try) to play the hole.

[Emil Weber]

For me great greens are:
-varied in internal contours, greensites, shapes, sizes.
-lay of the land as much as possible
-playing a role in the strategy of the hole
-FUN TO PUTT ON

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

Here's my list of sets of great greens from the back of The Anatomy of a Golf Course, c. 1991:

Augusta National
Ballybunion
Camargo
Charlotte CC
Commonwealth
Crooked Stick
Crystal Downs
Detroit GC
Forsgate
Garden City
Harbour Town
High Pointe 
Hollywood
Long Cove
Merion
Morfontaine
National Golf Links
North Berwick
North Shore (L.I.)
Oakland Hills
Oakmont
Paraparaumu
Peachtree
Pebble Beach
Pine Valley
Pinehurst #2
Prairie Dunes
Prestwick
Rockport, TX
Royal Dornoch
Royal Melbourne
Royal Worlington & Newmarket
Somerset Hills
St. Andrews
TPC at Sawgrass (guess I've changed my mind there)
Westhampton
Winged Foot
Woking
Yale

Interesting that I didn't put Seminole on it!

I think great greens are greens which make it matter which side of the flag you miss on, and make it matter which side of the fairway you're approaching from.  They are certainly not just about putting, they're also about recovery play and strategy.

[Sean_A]

Yes, I agree that greens which dictate play from the tee are great even if very basic.  Hence the reason I like Burnham's 7th so much.  While not unusual at Burnham, I would say only about half (you have to throw out par 3s) of the greens dictate play from the tee.

Wokin's greens are certainly interesting because of their internal contouring being quite unusual for British greens and there are a few old time front to backers chucked in for good measure.  However, not surprisingly their tie-ins to the surrounds are very well done which makes it a bit easier to figure them out.  Indeed, Woking's greens still stand out as unusual in Britain.  That said, are they mostly about chipping and putting rather than dictating play from the tee? 

I look at a course like Beau Desert and practically of its par 4 and 5 greens dictate play from the tee, yet they don't have anywhere near the internal contours of Woking - they are far more lay of the land style which makes them tough because Beau is a hilly course.  IMO, totally different concepts for the greens as a set with Woking's being far more modern. 

I find that what makes many greens in the States tough is their speed combined with the contours.  Its very tough to tell how good greens are when they run at 11. 

Ciao

[Patrick Hodgdon]

Reading the Seminole/CP thread I was struck by Doak's comment; "Does Calusa Pines really have a great set of greens?  Because that's the missing element on 90% of modern courses."

It got me to thinking what do folks think of when they think of great greens?  Presumably Doak thinks of some of his own courses when thinking of great greens, but I have never seen a Doak.  I think he believes Pinehurst has great greens, something I am not sold on because I believe the end result for a miss is too scripted and predictable.  I also believe Doak thinks the greens of Oakland Hills are great.  I can get on board with this even though I generally tend to prefer lower key greens with the odd freak and flat one chucked in.  But Ross generally had a predictability to his greens which you knew had places (generally high of the hole) which were dead.    

What do you lot think of as great greens - as a set?  Why?  

Ciao

Sean excellent thread you started here and happy to see it was born out of a question that I've been thinking about for a while now. This is what is so fun about this site.

I think great greens are greens which make it matter which side of the flag you miss on, and make it matter which side of the fairway you're approaching from.  They are certainly not just about putting, they're also about recovery play and strategy.

Tom - Calusa Pines definitely fits your description here of having great greens. Half the time when discussing an upcoming approach shot with my players I am talking about where the best spot to miss is and also where not to hit it. It plays much like a course more to the North (as opposed to the more common Florida target golf around the water) where the premium is on a good second shot and less about the drive. However, a well placed drive can really help ease the difficulty of the second shot by allowing for a better angle to the green. And all of that is before you get to the putting which is still far from a piece of cake.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

This is a great place to go. It is hard to follow Tom but thankfully he did not go into depth on the subject. Great greeens to me do come in different shapes and sizes. The Mac/Raynor style greens at National etc and Mountain Lake for me are a joy to the soul to play. Augusta National's greens are as stimulating to watch others play as USC and Tenn cheerleaders. Tom, Coore and Crenshaw join a growing list of current architects bringing creativity  t grren complexes as well as interesting fun and often great greens to us. To me this is the great break with Fazio. He builds incredible holes to look at. They thrill you, yet often lack the strategy and green complexes which let a course stand the test of time at the top. I am playing at Mountain Lake this weekend. I cannot tell you how excited I am thinking of my first putt on the double plateau first green and each one thereafter.

[Mike Nuzzo]

I agree with variety and cohesiveness and the effect they have on shots.

I believe that any course can have a set of great greens.
Either original or through renovation.

I am sick of the greens that Tom calls out on 90% of modern courses.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I agree with Sean atht the obsession with Green speed often ruins what perhaps the architect had in mind.
The greens at Baalyneal are super in term of contour interest and strategy from the fiarway and or tee...yet if they get much above a nine in speed are basically unplayable and the avergae player ends up three putting all day...smae can be siad ofmany of the greens at Sand Hills....both courses have wonderful green sites and are two of my favourite courses to play.

Pine Valley and Merion are the same way great greens but sometimes allowed to be prepared perhaps faster than they should be to become a true test that is playable.

[PCCraig]

Are great greens subject to their surroundings? IE, a great redan green is only as good as the true options it gives the player to approach the green. How important is bunkering in building a great set of greens?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ths also begs the process question - if variety is the key to a great set of greens, how do you achieve that on an "average site" - follow the land or follow a generalized set of template designs a la CBM?  Obviously, even in template design, you would probably follow the land in selecting sites for the templates.

But, its easy to see that once you set up a "desireable" and diverse set of greens, based on strategy, recovery, contour, size, etc. that the template mode comes into play somehow in the design process.

I probably fall into this category in the thought process.  Since we design for golfers, if we think that at least one small green for a long approach shot (for instance) makes sense in Texas, barring really different wind conditions, wouldn't that green make sense almost anywhere, if properly placed on the landscape (that is not to say the bunkers, etc. would not be site specific, but the IDEA that a small green at the end of a long par 4 should be present in nearly every course if that is the gca philosopy.

BTW, its also quite clear that many gca's, given today's budgets may be having an "revelation" that smaller greens contribute to the greatness of a course, no?

[Sean_A]

Then I come to a course like Pennard and I reckon only half the 4 & 5 par greens really make much difference of the approach because the land is so rambunctious.  Yet, a handful have significant contours and many more are quite slopey.  They look far more straight forward to me than Woking's, but I find them harder to read.  Again, probably because the the course is quite hilly there is an underlying theme of grade level action.  I find them to be great set, because all sorts of greens are there except perhaps for the out and out back to fronters which look flat - one of my favourite types of greens.  

There aren't many sets in GB&I I would consider great and those that are, tend to not have a "theme" like I think of Ross greens.  They tend to be all over the place from a a few boring greens, to a few outrageous greens, to several deceptively clever greens to lay of the land and built up greens etc.  I think of North Berwick as the prototype of this huge variety approach if that makes any sense.  

I notice that Tom seems to have omitted Colt from his list.  Are Colt's greens generally seen  as a weakness or perhaps a neutral part of his designs?  They don't tend to be flashy, but I find it often makes a difference which side one misses from.  Perhaps they have the chipping element if not the spellbinding putting element?  In any case, can greens which are just good been seen as better if they "fit" the total design course philosophy well?  Sort of like the whole being better than the parts. I am not only thinking of Colt here, but Park Jr perhaps even more.   

Ciao

[Scott Warren]

Often when I see a great set of greens on a course, it feels to me like the remainder of each hole was designed around the green complex, rather than vice versa.

The great sets of greens I consider I have played - TOC, Baltray, Deal, Sandwich, Woking - all feature diversity not just in the type of challenge but in the difficulty of the challenge.

To me that is the major test of whether they're great: variety in the perspective (uphill, downhill and flat), whether they are sunken or raised above the surrounds, what type of shot they are receptive to and whether they are individually memorable, just as the holes as a whole should be individually memorable.

[George Pazin]

Can't really add much, other than I generally prefer greens where the penalties are less than obvious. The kind where you walk off wondering why you didn't do better, and wondering how you should play it next time.

[Tom_Doak]

I notice that Tom seems to have omitted Colt from his list.  Are Colt's greens generally seen  as a weakness or perhaps a neutral part of his designs?  They don't tend to be flashy, but I find it often makes a difference which side one misses from.  Perhaps they have the chipping element if not the spellbinding putting element?  In any case, can greens which are just good been seen as better if they "fit" the total design course philosophy well?  Sort of like the whole being better than the parts. I am not only thinking of Colt here, but Park Jr perhaps even more.   

Ciao

Sean:

I should have had Colt in there, for Royal Portrush at a minimum ... a great set of greens is the main reason that Dunluce rises a level above most of the other great links.

[cary lichtenstein]

Wonderful topic

[Niall C]

How much credit should the architects get for the green designs on some of these classic courses ? Did they really design the subtleborrows or was that down to the contractor/greenkeeper and/or settlement ?

It might be interresting to have a look at the list and see how many courses Carters worked on, or Suttons worked on and see how similiar they are. Just a thought.

Niall

[JNC Lyon]

Often when I see a great set of greens on a course, it feels to me like the remainder of each hole was designed around the green complex, rather than vice versa.

The great sets of greens I consider I have played - TOC, Baltray, Deal, Sandwich, Woking - all feature diversity not just in the type of challenge but in the difficulty of the challenge.

To me that is the major test of whether they're great: variety in the perspective (uphill, downhill and flat), whether they are sunken or raised above the surrounds, what type of shot they are receptive to and whether they are individually memorable, just as the holes as a whole should be individually memorable.

Scott, I am glad you mentioned Sandwich.  I was blown away by the green sites there!  Only a few failed to wow me (notably the 3rd and the 11th), but most of them were highly original.  I played in 40 mph winds and failed to hit a single green.  Therefore, I faced every sort of short-game shot imaginable on that golf course.  I could not have had more fun considering how badly I hit the ball.  Is that not the marker of a truly great set of greens?

[Scott Warren]

Funny you say that John, I see 3 as a great green, more subtle than 2 and 4 that bookend it, but if you get above the hole when it's fast, you quickly realise you'd have been better off hitting a mid-iron 30 yards short than being even 15ft above the hole if there is a tier between you and the hole.

That is definitely one par three where there are a few places to miss it that are preferable to hitting it in the wrong spot.

[Mark Pearce]

Sean,

I'm surprised you haven't mentioned Huntercombe.  I think that's a cracking set of greens.   TOC also has a great set of greens and on my one day there I was very impressed by Royal St Georges.

Of the modern courses I have played the best set of greens are Hanse's at Crail Craighead.

[Richard Phinney]

Tastes in greens do change.  In the late 19th century, a revision of the main course in Montrose necessitated the construction of five new greens. The instructions were as follows:

The turf will be laid by thoroughly experienced workmen only and must be laid to an even gradient entirely free from humps, hollows or any irregularity of surface. . . . and finished to a true surface with spirit level and levelling board.

Not surprisingly, when Harry Colt came to make his revisions he concluded:  ‘the natural undulations have been flattened out too much’!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()