[Tony Ristola]

Which modern architect with 20 or more courses to his credit has built the best greens?

[Peter Galea]

Tony,
Not that I've seen 20 courses of any one architect, but I have to ask, what's the criteria?
And, isn't it very subjective?
Is Mike Cirba one of the few that can answer this question?

[Tony Ristola]

It's not mandatory to have seen 20 courses... just wanted to hear opinions about architects who have been around for awhile.  

I'm sure there are enough people out there who have seen work by numerous architects, and could draw conclusions from what they've seen.  Perhaps not, and it is subjective, like most everything related to art.

[RJ_Daley]

There is really a variable set of criteria to have to answer that question.  Are you asking what greens are the most exciting strictily from a putting point of view?  Is it speed, contour, the combination of those and the super's input that defines best greens?  Or, is it greens and surrounds from 20-30 yards off putting surface and how they are graded out, guarded by bunkers and hazards, and mowed?  Or is it greens that start form the point of various approach strategies with hazard placements, tilt and orientations, and internal contouring and shelves.  

Where turf cultivars and maintenance that produce extreemly fast putting conditions are in play, I believe that good architects can design quality greens with tricky subtleties using deceptive surround features to give the breaks more mystery.  That may take some real shaping and finish talent for the constructor to translate the archie's concept (if he has one   ).  

Then there are the bold designs that produce wild putting surfaces that entertain you or frustrate you... depending on what emotional response you tend to enjoy.  

Stranz is bold and exciting.  Proctor and Axeland found some greens that are amazing in subtlty and tie-ins to their surrounds.  I liked what I saw of De Vries work in the bold department.  Dyes's greens of great subtlty at Whistling may prove to be one of the most interesting aspects of the upcoming PGA.  I recently played a Bob Lohmann design that is one of the best new courses I have seen from the approach shots into fantastic greens...  

I enjoy many styles of greens design because they are statements of the designers creativity, and about the only ones I don't like are the unimaginative ones that are flat and unremarkable intentionally to address fairness or speed of play issues...

[John_McMillan]

"20 or more" is a criteria which disqualifies a lot of architects.

I'd probably answer Doak,  but he hasn't yet built 20 courses - and he started with High Point in 1989.  

Daly's answers of Strantz or DeVries don't meet the 20 course cut off either.

[Joe Andriole]

It is notso complicated a question if you acknowledge that the answer is almost purely subjective and my answer would be unequivocally Pete Dye--he has been the most creative  and yet most thoughtful.

[jim_lewis]

Tom Fazio gets a lot of criticism on this site, some of which he actually deserves. BUT, I dont recall anyone criticizing his greens.  My observation is that his greens are consistantly excellent, the best of any modern architect I have seen, including those who have not yet designed 2o courses.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

I tend to agree with you.  The other day, when I mentioned we shouldn't get into Fazio bashing, I started thinking of his greens I have played.  I have taken a digital level out to measure slopes, and far from the "norm" of holding to 2-3%, Fazio consistently approaches 3 and even 4% on his greens, giving them good artistic flare, and making them the devil to putt, especially since most clubs he has designed keep them fast.

More than that, he is far from the standard designs sometimes depicted here.  For example, Flint Hills has a long par four with a reverse slope green. The 17th at Disney is a 200 plus par 3, with water, and a side to side deck of at least five foot in height.  the player who plays away from the water has a really delicate putt from the upper deck.  (Don't ask me how I know that)

His contours are imaginative.  Most architects, including yours truly, fight to avoid being repetitive.  He manages to pull little slopes in from the edges of the greens at all different angles that I find quite good.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jim/Jeff,

It's an interesting point you make about Fazio.  Maybe, strangely, it is the best part of his work.

One Fazio course in the Philadelphia area that never gets particularly good reviews but I recall having some pretty interesting greens is Hartefeld National.

I wonder if the boys from Philly agree with this assessment.

[TEPaul]

Funny, I was thinking about this topic and I was thinking I'm probably not all that equiped to comment because I haven't seen all that many courses, so I was thinking I really shouldn't comment but then I felt I really would like to give the topic a stab.

So I came up with my answer and I came up with an architect that may not really be tops in any one particular area of greens but was really solid (in what I've seen and played) in shape, contour, orientations, strategic implications, quality of construction, lack of errors, variety and general overall interest. And then I clicked back and and read the thread and I'll be damned! There are a number of contributors with the same pick--Tom Fazio!

[Mike_Cirba]

I think Pete Dye wins this one by a long shot, of any architect who has designed 20 or more courses.

I'm not sure that Steve Smyers has built 20 courses yet, but he does some very interesting greens, particularly integrating them well with surrounds.

Of modern architects who have built less, besides the usual suspects I'll throw in David Horn and Kelly Moran, simply because their work at Back Creek & Frog Hollow (Horn) and Hawk Pointe (Moran) stand out in my mind as the most refreshingly daring of any greens I've seen on new courses in recent years.

As far as Tom Fazio, I would have tended to agree that his greens are the best feature of his work, and have played some good greens of his that are imaginative.  Then, I played Pine Hill, and if I've seen less interesting greens on a golf course in recent years, the only one that comes to mind is Rees Jones's Tattersall.  Yikes....so blase that they're almost scary in their mind-numbing mediocrity.  

[SPDB2]

I really have to agree here. While some people here question the quality how Fazio gets to the hole, I don't think there are many who can question what he does when he gets there, IMO.

Fazio, has over the years been fortunate enough to work with some really great shapers, who have really been able to successfully fulfill the archs vision.

I think Faz did a tremendous job at Hartefeld, there are a couple of really good greens. Take for instance the home stretch of holes 16-18. 16th is a skyline green usually approached with a wedge. It's qualities are spectacular, particularly for a skyline. It folds off on almost every side, making even the shortest shot seem tremendously difficult.

17 is a dicey little sucker that becomes quite narrow in the back right position. Guarding its front is a deep bunker which makes up and down from it, very difficult. Beyond the green is a sharp drop off, and missing the green on that side is certain death.

18 is Fazio's nod to 18 at Augusta, and the contouring of the green is just as diabolical. There are 3 or 4 different sections of this green separated by bold slopes. These sections create terrifying consequences if they are missed. In a personally significant nassau, my partner (a solid 9 handicap), three putted this green to allow our opponents to square the match. Back we went to the 18th tee to break the tie (it helps when you know the owner), and true to form, my partner three-putted the green again, this time to hand the match to our opponents.  Suffice it to say, this guy finds hartefeld's greens memorable.

I'll stop talking. However, I will add also that I thought the Galloway Nat'l. green complexes were the absolute best i've seen Fazio do. His work in the NE seems to be really good, much better than elsewhere. I'm glad to see that he is returning to this area with over 6 projects either started or planned.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

You are definitely an analyst true to your feelings and you're most observant! I'm looking forward to Pine Hill to check out what you say. Now that you mention it I'm trying to think what it is about Fazio's green that I've played that made me say that. It's hard to put my finger on it. I can't remember his greens that well, only in a general sense. There are a few I certainly can though--like Galloway's #1,2, and a few others in an overall general sense! I think there are some on Hartefeld too like maybe #12 and #14. But I can't see them in my minds eye that well which probably isn't a great sign.

I mean you take a green like NGLA's #1, #6!--see them once and everything about them should be seared in your mind!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

It's sort of an interesting exercise to think about both Pine Hill and Tattersall's green complexes.

One (Pine Hill) was hailed as a great site in the mode of Pine Valley, while the other (Tattersall) was excused as an exceedingly difficult site with lots of inherited limitations.

Yet, they both share some really rolling property, and it's tough to believe that any limitations should have prevented either of these renowned architects from producing something imaginative that complemented the sites while distinguishing each golf course.

In fact, as bizarre a routing that you'll find at either course, each could have been been dramatically improved with the creation or utilization of superb greens and surrounds.  Nothing natural or artificial should have been impediments on either site towards those very attainable goals.

Yet, at Pine Hill, the only green of note is ironically the very first one, where a pretty good par five is made memorable by a subtly imaginative green.  After that, the greens blend into a very boring morass of green grass and no sass.

At Tattersall, despite the beautiful flowing long natural slopes, not a one is used in the green configurations.  Instead, one would almost have to attempt to three-putt, so lifeless and uninteresting are the greens.

Both architects are capable of much better, and I have to wonder if they weren't being somewhat patronizing to the public course nature of the sites.  Still, I have to ask if private course players are such inherently better putters that they feel justified in leaving the paying public with such unchallenging swill.

Finally, you're right Tom.  A great green should be firmly imprinted in the player's mind long after he leaves the course.  I can clearly recall almost every green at Fenway, for instance, months later after a single playing.  NGLA speaks for itself, as do others.  The very reason I mentioned Horn's and Moran's work is that I can think back and many of them come rushing immediately to mind.  

In fact, can anyone name a great course that doesn't have great greens?    

  

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

To answer your question I'll borrow something from a different thread that's active now -- Bethpage Black!

If the Black had the greens of Oakland Hills / South, Oakmont or Winged Foot West, it would be a cinch among the 10-20 best courses in America without any question.

Yes, there are a few greens of distinction at the Black, but far too many of them are just routine flat discs. A pity.

Still, the Black is a wonderful design but it could (and should) have been so much better. Why the USGA & New York State opted not to redo a few of the greens in preparation for the 02 Open is something I, along with many others, still question.

P.S. Mike, I second your thoughts on Pete Dye -- always interesting complexes that simply keep you from relaxing in your round. I've also enjoyed green complexes by Tom Doak (Lost Dunes), Mike Keiser (The Kingsley Club), and Tim Liddy (The Trophy Club), Ron Kern (Purgatory) to name just four designers I've played among contemporary architects and some of their efforts I've really liked with their respective green complexes -- although I don't believe any of them may have hit the 20 course minimum (I could certainly be wrong).

[Rich_Goodale]

Mike

Of the great courses I've played I'd say that Muirfield's greens are the least inspired.

[BillV]

Matt

I haven't played the Black, but I really don't understand why everyone here raves about the Black and how wonderful it is, yet gives it a free pass for bland, flat uninteresting greens?  REpeatedly.

Is it because it is the very first BIG BOLD VISUALly appealing course that is now the mould for the CC-FAD, yet it is also the possessor of a great? routing and obviously superior golf terrain?

Me thinks the Black may not be, fondly recalled and given a pass from the memories a group of men have from when they were boys.  Honestly I don't know, but it is an observation that bears some thought.  It is a bit inconsistent with the generally demanding discussions here.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Mike,

I played Pinehill.  The site is incredible, and I enjoyed the views from the tees, but after 8 holes something was bothering me, when I realized that the greens were unimaginative.  Basically, they were bunker left, bunker right, bunker left, etc.  The settings were dramatic, the ninth hole is beautiful to look at, but you basically saw the same green 8 times before.  They played it very safe, maybe because the fairways hemmed in by pines was thought to be the real challenge. Keeping the course playable helps keep the rounds going and the money coming, but man what a magnificent opportunity squandered.  It seemed as if the greens came out of a falt file from other projects, maybe hold them up to the window to do something different from the previous courses.  Given that site the course could have rivaled Pine Valley, but they took the safe route and made a pleasant course that can take lots of rounds, make everyone happy, and make lots of money.  I do not see interesting greens as Fazio's specialty.

[ChipOat]

Fazio built some really cool greens on the Short Course at Pine Valley.  Or was he just copying Crump's greens from the "big course"?

[jim_lewis]

Well I guess that settles it. Fazio apparently built one course, Pine Hill, with mediocre greens, so obviously, he does not build good greens. Never mind the dozens of his courses with outstanding greens.

BTW, if the owner's objective at Pine Hill was to make lots of money (disgraceful!), if sounds like Fazio gave him what he wanted.  Too bad he didn't choose to "rival" Pine Valley and build a course so difficult that the average Joe would only want to play it once.

[RichardH.]

[Tim_Weiman]

Kelly,

I wonder what people would have said if Fazio had attempted to build something like PV at Pine Hill, especially after already doing the Ransome course.

Anyway, on the subject of Fazio greens I don't mind saying that #15 at Sand Ridge is one of the few modern greens I've played that qualifies in my mind as a "masterpiece".  I won't argue that the entire collection is noteworthy, but this one is really special.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

Where did I say that I judged all of Tom Fazio's greens by one course?

I think what I found at Pine Hill, however, is indicative of something that is a disturbing trend with him.  As he takes on more and more projects, the chances that any one of them will be particularly noteworthy drops precipitously.  Say what you like, but courses designed by his associates with Tom dropping by for a few photo ops are NOT up to his best standard.

And what about the paying public?  Well, despite our sometimes pretentious comments about them just wanting clean, green, pretty, and manicured, they seem to have some other ideas.  Please see below...

http://www.golfcourse.com/search/cc_display.cfm?clubid=21549&courseid=37646

Tim,

I give Fazio credit for not attempting a strict emulation of Pine Valley at Pine Hill.  He was in a no win situation if he attempted to do that, admittedly.  Instead, the course features little "tips of the cap" to PV, with some sandy waste areas here and there, generally as easily carried areas off the tee.

However, not imitating PV and not building interesting greens are two very different things, wouldn't you agree?

[BillV]

Jim Lewis

Give me a break. Fazio has built many a lame green, sorry, so get off the poor Fazio whine.  The guy has shown htat he can do a lot better, see Galloway, e.g.

Pine Hill was a monumental disappointment, BTW, if you need to hear it again. Monumental.

[jim_lewis]

Dr. Vostinak:

I don't whine, period!  There is nothing in the game of golf important enough to me to warrent whining.

I suppose all modern architects have built some mediocre/poor greens and I take the word of you, Mike, and Kelly that Pine Hill is a disppointment, at least to you.

The question posed in Tony's original post is which modern architect builds the best greens. I have seen  more excellent Fazio greens than by any other modern architect.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()