Is the need for great green sites overated?

[David_Elvins]

Over the last few years there have been many world class courses built on great sites such as Barnbougle Dunes, Sand Hills, Ballyneal, and Pacific Dunes (to name a few) where architects have had the run of great natural land and obsessed with plotting natural looking courses with greens perched on natural ridges, saddles and knobs, or tucked against natural dunes.

But is the search for perfect green sites overated?  There are a lot of great holes from the golden age (and before)  where the green is simply situated against a boundary on ground that gently falls toward the player, away from the player, or slightly to the left or right.  It is the shape of the property, rather than the ground that dictates the green location.

The 17th and the 18th at The Old Course weren't prime green sites, they were simply as far as you could play without hitting into the town.

The 10th at Merion was shifted to its present site because any further and you would hit onto Ardmore avenue.

The 15th at Garden City simply plays towards the site boundary where it sits on gently sloping land.

As does the 16th at Royal Melbourne West.  And the 4th at Woodlands, the 11th at Yarra Yarra and the  1st at Victoria - perhaps each the best hole on their respective courses. 

What are some other great holes where the green location is a broad slope in front of a course boundary?  Where the shape of the property, rather than the ground has dictated the ground location.

Where have modern architects been able to replicate the great efforts at the holes mentioned above and been able to construct great holes in modestly sloped ground?

[RJ_Daley]

David, while I know you seek more of an answer and specific hole examples of greens that are place because the routing seems to have run out of room... on you actual question, I don't think the need of great green sites can possibly be overated. 

I really can't come up with such a hole in my personal memory- off hand, that is a great hole and green that seemed to just run out of room to do much more than a slope and abrupt end abutted against OB or off course feature.  While the Road hole is to me the ultimate example of that.

[Jim Nugent]

David, reading your title, I thought you would give examples of great courses that don't depend on great greensites.  Instead you gave examples of a few holes.  Do you know of any great courses where all or even the majority of greensites are not great? 

[David_Elvins]

David, reading your title, I thought you would give examples of great courses that don't depend on great greensites.  Instead you gave examples of a few holes.  Do you know of any great courses where all or even the majority of greensites are not great? 

Good point Jim, and one I tend to agree with, I could list plenty more holes though. 

To answer your question first, Kingston Heath and Garden City would be the two highest rated courses I have played without many good green sites (although both courses are a joy to play, I wouldn't call either great).  Only maybe the 15th and 7th at Kingston Heath show much interest.  The others are on gently sloping land. 

BUT:

I asked the question in relation to holes, because I am interested in what architects do with the least interesting part of their sites.  Take Riviera for example.  I haven't played it but from what I have read and observed, it seems to me to be a great golf course with some great green sites.  But the most famous hole on the course (and perhaps the best) - the tenth -  appears to have possibly the worst green site on the course. 

Are modern architects kicking the same goals on such land?  I would love to hear some examples, preferably ones that dont involve digging a big lake.

I have three suspicions, however.

1. Some contemporary architects might be spending too much effort finding great green sites.  Doak's St Andrews Beach and Coore and Crenshaw's Sand Hills are two very good courses that attract criticism that the golfer plays up to a lot of greens sitting above them.  Are some architects trying to hard to find great green sites when the examples of holes that I have listed show that great green sites are not required on all holes?  As an add-on, can this lead to disjointed routings with long walks from green to tee?

2. Some contemporary architects use  'low profile minimalism' as an excuse to not push the envelope on such holes.   For example, read the following sentence from one of Ran's reviews: "In a fine change up from the heavily bunkered hole prior, the simplicity of the fourteenth adds to the overall variety of the course."  I think this is making excuses for a bland hole where the architect hasnt made the best to construct something on some average land.  I haven't played a heap of courses, so I am asking, is this the norm? Or are architects out their creating holes of the interest of 10 at Riviera? 

3. Coutenr to point 2, a lot of architects overcomplicate things on poor land, going for style over substance. 

I would love to hear and study, some examples of where architects create great architecture with average green sites.

[Sean_A]

David

I think if the archie is given a natural or unnatural boundary he should try to use it to the best advantage of the hole.  This is one of the many niggling problems with modern design precipitated by safety concerns.  One of the absolute kings of a plain jane greensite made quite interesting by an oob line and the design of the hazards in conjunction with the same oob line is Woking's 4th.  While the green does have some interest it is not nearly close to great green site, but once the centreline hazard is introduced it is another story altogether. 

Another greensite which comes to mind is Huntercombe's 3rd.  Willie Park Jr could easily have placed the green further right taking the oob more out of play, but NO, he chose to use the oob and even accentuate it with a green wildly sloping toward the oob.  There is nothing special about this site, but Park Jr gets the most out of it simply by embracing the oob.  In fact, this is the remarkable aspect of Huntercombe all round.  Park Jr has given us something which is ever so compelling, but on a very average piece of land with any number of just okay green sites.  While I can understand folks not thinking its a great course because I agree, but Huntercombe is a great design. 

I think Deal's 6th too uses the oob very well, though this time it takes away the cautious play long and makes the golfer hit what will often be a very uncomfortable approach due to a tail wind and raised green.  St Enodoc's 4th is superb design too and is one of those holes which is probably better off for the technology boost of recent years.

I have a load of time for archies who see bold design not merely as a matter of shaping, contours, and slopes, but also as a matter of the more subtle aspects which in the end may wow a golfer more than the wow factor! Any golfer worth calling himself that will eventually get it the intent or at the very least have his own interpretation which may even be better than the archie could think of.   

Ciao

[Scott Warren]

Sean,

Very true about the use of the beach on #6 at Deal, but it's actually in play, not OOB. Before the sea wall, it was a skyline green, so even more frightening from the fairway.

[Jamie Barber]

^ it might as well be OOB, good luck with trying to hit a ball from the pebbles!

[Matthew Mollica]

What are some other great holes where the green location is a broad slope in front of a course boundary?  Where the shape of the property, rather than the ground has dictated the ground location.

Lost Farm has a blend of great natural green sites, and some very unremarkable greensites.

2, 9, 11, 12 and 16 spring to mind as being on flat ordinary parcels of the overall property.
Esepcially the last 3 examples.

MM

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

They sure can help, but, I don't think they're as critical as some think.

GCGC, which you cite, is a perfect example of where greens simply appear, seemlessly out of the fairway.

A few years ago I course that I've been playing for decades, embarked upon some work on one of their greens.
They created a temporary green in the fairway just short of the work area.
As that area was mowed closer and closer, that temporary green came alive with wonderful slopes and undulations.
Previously, it had just been fronting fairway, now, it was a great green, albeit on a shortened hole.

So while great green sites are desirable, I don't think the lack of them automatically causes a course to be categorized as deficient.

[Tom_Doak]

Some contemporary architects might be spending too much effort finding great green sites.  Doak's St Andrews Beach and Coore and Crenshaw's Sand Hills are two very good courses that attract criticism that the golfer plays up to a lot of greens sitting above them.  Are some architects trying to hard to find great green sites when the examples of holes that I have listed show that great green sites are not required on all holes?  As an add-on, can this lead to disjointed routings with long walks from green to tee?

David:

What you mention above is a function of the topography of the site we are working with.  It's not just that we are trying to find great green sites; it's that we are trying to find a green site close to a tee location that will give you a look at where you're going on the next hole.  When you have a site like St. Andrews Beach with some big ridges to traverse, you are either going to have a bunch of big uphill walks between green and tee, or you are going to have a fair number of uphill approaches.  I prefer the latter.  Generally, so does Bill, although he's sometimes better than me at having an up-and-over fairway and back down to a green.  [Which, incidentally, was my first plan for #10 and #11 at St. Andrews Beach -- but moonah trees made that impossible.]

It is not a coincidence that the two courses you cited in your post, Garden City and Kingston Heath, are both very flat.  Kingston Heath has only one hill, and that darned MacKenzie insisted on playing a silly uphill approach to the top of it!

As for creating greens from flat sites, we do it when we need to.  An example from Bill Coore's work would be Talking Stick North -- a very interesting course with some great greens, largely panned here because it's a flat site.  A recent example of a great green we built from a flat site would be #6 at Old Macdonald, which was dead flat to start with.  But if I can find better green sites, I'm going to use them.  We just don't get property with nicely spaced mature trees a la Riviera.

[David_Elvins]

Sean,

Thanks for the detailed post, very intrestesting.

Matt,

I am looking forward to checking out the C&C greensites at Barnbougle.  As I mentioned above, I was not completely enamoured by their work on the back nine at Hidden Creek, but I am defintely open minded about enjoying their other work.  I am really looking forward to seeing how they have traversed the flatter land. 

[Mark_F]

What are some other great holes where the green location is a broad slope in front of a course boundary?  Where the shape of the property, rather than the ground has dictated the ground location.

Lost Farm has a blend of great natural green sites, and some very unremarkable greensites.

2, 9, 11, 12 and 16 spring to mind as being on flat ordinary parcels of the overall property.

None of them are great holes, though, MM.

[David_Elvins]

David:

What you mention above is a function of the topography of the site we are working with.  It's not just that we are trying to find great green sites; it's that we are trying to find a green site close to a tee location that will give you a look at where you're going on the next hole.  When you have a site like St. Andrews Beach with some big ridges to traverse, you are either going to have a bunch of big uphill walks between green and tee, or you are going to have a fair number of uphill approaches.  I prefer the latter.  Generally, so does Bill, although he's sometimes better than me at having an up-and-over fairway and back down to a green.  [Which, incidentally, was my first plan for #10 and #11 at St. Andrews Beach -- but moonah trees made that impossible.]

I agree with you about the function of the topography but I think that when the jigsaw is put together there will always be some green sites that are not great natural greensites.  For example, Sand Hills seemed to have infinite routing possibilities and they still had to build the 4th green on an an average greensite.  But it is in a lot of people's favorite holes.  Yet in interviews, Bill Coore is almost apologetic about building that green. 

at St Andrews Beach, 15, 16 and maybe 5 are green sites that are as much a function of the property shape as the property topography.  Some people think that 15 is an average hole because of the bland greensite but IMO, they are putting too much emphasis on the green site and not enough on the awkward land in the driving zone.  great greens have been built on worse land than the 15th green. 

It is not a coincidence that the two courses you cited in your post, Garden City and Kingston Heath, are both very flat.  Kingston Heath has only one hill, and that darned MacKenzie insisted on playing a silly uphill approach to the top of it!

I would say that it is more of a ridge than a hill, and stretches across the 16th, 8th 9th and 17th fairways.  The location of the ridge, 150-250m from the southern edge of the property makes it a tough location for green sites but I have no doubt that if it was located in the middle of the poperty that MacKenzie would have recommended playing back and forth to it as many times as possible.  But would the course be better for it?  I find it hard to believe that the course would improve on its wold ranking. Which is why I suspect that finding these greensites might be overated.  Even at Royal Melbourne, which has great green sites such as 5, 6 and 17, there are magnificent greens built on unremarkable ground such as at 3 and 16.

As for creating greens from flat sites, we do it when we need to.  An example from Bill Coore's work would be Talking Stick North -- a very interesting course with some great greens, largely panned here because it's a flat site.  A recent example of a great green we built from a flat site would be #6 at Old Macdonald, which was dead flat to start with.  But if I can find better green sites, I'm going to use them.  We just don't get property with nicely spaced mature trees a la Riviera.

Thanks for the info, I am looking forward to checking out Old MacDonald in a few months and may try to check out Talking Stick too. 

[Brett_Morrissy]

Dave,

Very interesting thread...thanks

As I was reading through the posts, I was thinking of Rivieria, and then it gets mentioned with #10.

Mr Thomas, was forced to build a course literally in a box, where the routing has to run in to a literal brick wall(s)- canyon walls at least and a Baranca also dicitating to him.

Holes 5 & 6 are tucked into the corners of the property, I do not believe they are "great green sites", but they are certainly great golf holes - a lot of fun.

But I would also suggest the number of courses with poor to average(flat) green sites - if you grouped them together, I imagine the majority would be average golf courses. On the otherhand, if you took all the courses with great, interesting land, grouped them, the majority of those courses are going to be of a better quality?

I am sure the skill (or lack of) of the GCA is much more apparent on a uninteresting land parcel than the contrasting one. But isn't every architect/designer going to try and use the most interesting sites possible in their routing - be mad not to...


Should the question be - "Where have great courses been built that DID NOT take advantage of the great green sites?
is that feasible?
 

[Tom_Doak]

Brett:

The latter is a good question.  Pinehurst #2 and Winged Foot are the first two that come to mind, where few of the green sites were exceptional at the start.  There are also some holes at Merion which fit that description, though there are more holes at Merion which were blessed with an outstanding green site, too.