[Tim_Weiman]

The recent thread asking which modern architect designed the best greens gave me a lot of trouble.  I still haven’t come up with an answer.  So, it got me to wondering: do I, do we, really even notice the greens?

I realize this might sound like heresy, but then I went through my recent visit to Pacific Dunes recalling what went through my mind on each hole and really how little thought I gave to the greens.  Hole by hole my thoughts were:

#1 – Fairway contour and green complex…..how much movement there was

#2 – The only hole I gave the green much thought due to left center contour

#3 – I was completely in awe of the bunker tie in to the green, so much so that I never gave the green itself any thought

#4 – How to play the tough second shot occupied my thinking.  I seem to recall the green itself was pretty cool, but not compared to the challenge of the approach shot itself.

#5 – Kind of like Number One, there is so much around the green that captured my attention

#6 – I never gave the green a single thought.  The unique nature of the hole itself stood out.

#7 – Similar to Number One.  I loved all the fairway and green complex movement.

#8 – This hole gave you all kinds of things to think about, especially around the green.  Again, I would say the green complex overshadowed the green itself.

#9- I only saw upper green.  Lots happening here on the green that sticks in my mind.

#10 – Thoughts of the ocean and the wind (what club to use).  Never really thought about green.

#11 – Absolutely loved the bunkers and the setting.  Again, the green didn’t make the show.

#12 – Couldn’t stop thinking about what a change of pace this green complex was and about the green depth.  Never gave the issue of green contour any thought.

#13 – Sorry to be completely shallow, but the enormous bunker on the right just completely dominated my thinking.

#14 – One of my favorite holes.  Loved everything around the green, so I gave little thought to green itself.

#15 – The placement of fairway bunkers stole the show, as did the elevation of the green (influencing club selection for approach).

#16 – Couldn’t stop thinking about the landing area in the fairway.

#17 – The entire scene, the mood, just grabs you.  Couldn’t stop thinking about what Mackenzie would have thought.  Never really looked at the green itself.

#18 – Maybe the best balance between being distracted by bunkers I liked and noticing how you need to consider the green contour for both your approach and your putt.


Am I just in the slow group?  Other than the real dramatic stuff such as what Mike Strantz built in recent years, do you really come away with a detailed recollection of each green on your first site visit?

P.S. To any architects, for God’s sake, don’t think I’m trying to diminish the importance of greens.  I’m just wondering how well people really remember them after their first visit.

[Patrick Hitt]

Tim,
I can give you a great example of a course where the greens really stood out above the rest of the course. I had a chance to play Aronimink last November. I was very interested to see the ongoing restoration work by Ron Prichard, but came away from the round amazed by the character of the greens. Now I don't remember every contour - but many of the features, including the waves through the par 3 5th, the bowl in the uphill par 4 11th, and the swale in the hillside 7th green vividly stand out. I could list more when I have more time. I expected a long and strong routing, but I was really excited to see the character in those greens - to the point where I may have missed some of the other features of the routing while I wondered what was coming up next. Even as Ron was telling us about the changes to 17 over the years, I was gazing down the hill at the wavy green before me. Those are some memorable contours.  

[RJ_Daley]

Tim,

Perhaps you have different responses to what you notice and remember based on what the architect intended.  For instance, do you have a stronger recollection of green contours, surrounds, and putting game at Crystal Downs than PD?  Remember that TD told us when he spoke to us that he purposely toned down the greens at PD.  Perhaps he wants you to see those aspects of the route and through the green more at PD.  

I find my reactions to courses vary in much the same way as you describe.  There are courses that are more memorable for the presentation through the green, and courses that have greens and surrounds that are most prevalent in my mind.  Examples are, Tobacco Road, Lawsonia, Crystal Downs and a course I recently played designed by Bob Lohmann called The Creeks, where the greens and surrounds are at the top of my recollections.  Not that there aren't plenty of features at those courses in fairway characteristics that aren't memorable, but the greens and surrounds jump to mind first.  

[Mark_Fine]

Yes Tim Yes!!  The whole green complex is very important to me when I am studying a golf course.  Many times it's the greens that really separate the wheat from the chaff!

[Doug Wright]

Tim,

After a year plus on this website it's all I can do to take the club back for all the golf course architecture information I'm processing during a round...    

Although the above is not totally in jest, I for one do notice the greens in assessing the course, for better or worse. At least for me, it's a material component of my assessment. And you've hit on one of the big criteria for assessment--memorability. I don't think "over the top" is critical to this, as there are some really cool, subtle greens and really bad boring greens I've seen relatively recently that are memorable to me (eg Cool--Ross @ Wilmington GC; bad/boring McCumber--TPC @ Heron Bay). Sounds like in the case of Pacific Dunes, you were just overwhelmed by the "through the green" features. I'd be curious if your view is different re other courses.

By the way, thanks for the synopsis on PD--I'm playing there next month.  I was going to start a thread on "what to look for at Pacific Dunes..."  but you've given me enough to chew on. Stick around here long enough and all questions will be answered.  

All The Best,  

[Tim_Weiman]

Dick Daley,

Maybe You are right about Crystal Downs.  Holes where the contour of the green really stands out rather than other features of the hole include:#2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, and 17.

What about the other holes?

#1 - Overall panorama and green setting

#4 - No one feature stands out except a feeling of needing to correctly shape the tee shot (left to right)

#6 - The scabs and the rollercoaster fairway standout

#8 - One of the world's great fairways steals it for me

#9 - I can't stop thinking of Mackenzie story and how hard it seems to reach the green, especially in the wind

#12- An incredibly peaceful setting and brilliant mood change, though I do recall lots to think about on the green

#13 - Our group's favorite hole and certainly one with all you can handle on and around the green.  Still, the requirements for shot placement prevails in the battle for my most distinct memory.  If pushed, I'll agree this green stands out.

#14 - The shot at heaven overcomes anything the green might offer.

#15 - One of my favorite holes in golf.  Brilliant fairway contour overshadows anything on the green.

#17 - The dominant feature is the decision forced on you about the tee shot.  Whatever you chose, you are likely to second guess yourself.  The green just can't compete.

#18 - Overall dramatic setting stands out just imagining what it would be like with spectators.


Dick, while I'd like to say I notice and appreciate everything, both Pacific Dunes and Crystal Downs have features which really grab your attention.  For me at least, both venues require follow up visits to truly appreciate the greens.

By the way, without going hole by hole, I'd say the same about Pebble Beach or Pine Valley.

[Peter Galea]

I certainly do. The green is the prize. It's the target on all but 18 shots sometimes less. I like to putt, so they are the most important part of the course to me. Even pitching or chipping to, they take the most concentration. It's where accuracy is paramount. A golf course without good greens (design and maintenance) is not much of a golf course in my eyes. Best of all it's the real ground game.

[RJ_Daley]

Tim, turning attention to CD #6 green, I am pushing you to re-consider the memorability of that one!  

[Mike_Cirba]

You betcha;

Tim,

Maybe I'm ultra-observant, but I defy anyone to play Fenway once, for instance, and walk away not remembering clearly at least 70% of the greens 3 months later.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Dick,

I'm not saying the green at #6 isn't memorable.  Rather I'm just trying to express what stands out the most.

In a case like #7, it seems to me like a no brainer: how could that green not be your first thought about the hole.

But, other holes at CD have great greens that don't stand out (at least for me) because so much else is happening on the hole (#13).

I have never heard anyone talk about Pebble Beach and focus on the greens.  Have you?

Now, I'll also confess that very few people ever talk about the greens at Ballybunion New, yet being intimately familiar with them I think there is quite a bit there of interest.

All I'm suggesting is that a golf course presents many things.  Our brain applies a filter, one strong enough that on many fine courses a second visit is required to really appreciate the greens.

By the way, how many greens really standout out in your memory of Whistling Straits?

[Evil Lurker]

I've heard Pete Dye say he uses the same six greens three times on each course...has anyone noticed this??

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Aronomink's greens have always been good but in the recent restoration they took them back out to where they were designed to be after shrinking down over the decades (much like all courses of Aronomink's age)! They may have brought back 20-30% of lost green space in some cases so now the lights are turned up again, so to speak.

TimW:

I mean nothing in the slightest bit disrespectful by this believe me but I'm surprised you didn't notice the greens in some of the examples you gave. Sometimes golfers do have to be extra observant I realize but can I ask you what your handicap is for instance? Sometimes I think if a golfer is not really playing a course in regulation--GIRs and stuff they might tend not to notice greens as readily as they would if they were playing more in GIR and things of that nature.

[redanman (Guest)]

Speak for yourself! Always!  Do you look at a broad's face? (With artful respect to Tillie the terror)

Except I missed them all after #1 at Pine Hill.  

[jim_lewis]

Tim:

To me the green complexes is the single most important feature of a course, far more important than the bunkering . Unfortunately, greens are usually not as photogenic as bunkers and are not as well judged from photographs.

Pinehurst #2 and Augusta National are two courses where, if you remember nothing else, you will probably remember every green. To a lesser degree, the same is true of Forest Creek.

I have now played a total of two Davis Love courses, and based on that limited exposure, I think he builds some of the best and most memorable greens of any "up-and-coming" architect I have seen.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Can't really comment on Crystal Downs so I thought I'd give my opinion on the original question as it relates to some average courses.

Yes I do often remember the green complexes, but that is usually what I'm looking at here in flat Houston.  I've recently started to branch out and hit more courses here (mostly I'm bored of my home course's subtle greens).
3 recent new courses (for me) had completely different approaches.  

First course - 14 greens were 3 tiered, and although I made a unusual number of long putts, I was so tired of seeing the same green type, even though they were quite dramatic.  One did stick out, as I had to hit a flop shot from the front edge to a back right pin to get it close.

Second - The front nine had extremely intricate green shaping which was a very pleasant surprise, and made for some interest.  A couple didn't work, and without a replay or two, it would be difficult to determine if they really added significant strategy.  It apeared as if on the back side they worked on making the bunkers more respectably (front were blah) but ran out of time or expense on the greens, which were much less interesting.

Third - A 5th decile track by many (or less), that didn't have an interesting tee shot.  Positives - lots of wind, no trees. Minus - dormant grass didn't make it easy to aim, not one visual clue.  The course was built in a flood zone for $1.5MM with a significant portion spent on a few bridges, but there were several very well thought out greens that varied quite a bit, that played very well with the strategy of the holes.  So after reflection, this was my favorite.

So my location (Houston) dictates that I play the courses with the most interesting and most strategic greens.
But I'd imagine that would be the case no matter where I played.

Mike

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

No disrespect taken.

What motivated this thread was what I perceived to be the relatively modest response to the thread asking which modern architect built the best greens.

I would have thought many people would have strong opinions on this topic, especially GCAers who pride themselves on being experts on such matters.

So, I wondered why?

Specifically, I wondered if we really didn't notice greens as much we thought we did.  Maybe, some folks here would be too embarrassed to admit it.  After all, someone just might ask what their handicap was!

Thus, I decided to take a modern course most people would agree has very interesting, if somewhat subdued greens: Pacific Dunes.  I went through a tour of the course in my mind and asked what really stood out.  In other words, what were the lasting, most powerful memories I had of each hole?

I came to the conclusion that in most instances it was not the greens.  I don't mean to suggest TD didn't build memorable greens, but on a hole like #3 you have this absolutely brilliant bunker/green tie in.  It is among the very best I've seen.  That is what stands out.  Not the green itself.

I'm just speculating that not as many people come way with distinct memories of greens than one might assume and that this may in part account for the modest input on the another thread.

Tom, take a place like Dooks.  Sure everyone will remember the 13th green and probably #17 (where greenside bunkers were removed leaving quite interesting contour).  But, how many more could most visitors really detail?  How can memories of greens compete with memories of the awesome setting in Dingle Bay?

Let's take another example you are very familiar with: Pine Valley.  Not Pine Valley as Tom Paul knows it, but Pine Valley for the typical first time visitor.  Wouldn't a significant number of first time visitors have other more powerful, longer lasting memories than the greens?

Take #5.  You and I both know how scary it can be if you put your ball above the pin.  But, I'm guessing that the intimidating view from the tee will stand out a lot more.

As for the handicap question, I'm guessing the better player might have a better memory of greens than the mid handicap player (excluding distinquished folks like Dick Daley).  I think Bob Lewis once mentioned something like the greens being all there really was to PV.  Imagine a mid handicapper saying such a thing.

In sum, I still come back to suspecting a great many people, far more than care to admit it, don't really come away with particularly strong memories of greens on many courses.  Other impressions stand out more, IMHO.

[TEPaul]

Jim Lewis:

I agree with you about Love! I played one of his first courses in the salt marsh area of Georgia a few times and was very impressed! A public course (can't remember the name at the moment), but the place had a nice low profile sort of old fashioned feel to the course! Unfortunately they might plant houses around it! That would really be a shame because the sort of isolated feeling out there amongst the salt marshes was most appealing! Some guy who worked there told me Davis's brother Mark really spent loads of time on the design and construction of that one.

[TEPaul]

TimW:

I'm sure you're right that sometimes things, like greens can get overshadowed by something else. Even at a course like Pine Valley that has awesome greens there may be other things that overshadow them--certainly to a first time visitor.

Although it has not been talked about much on here by our architect contributors, there are various "art principles" many of them do apply to their designs, like harmony, balance, rhythm, proportion, emphasis. They're trying to create and set focal points for various reasons, to direct or catch the eye. At a place like Pine Valley there is a ton going on visually and the greens, as good as they are, might get overlooked just because so much is going on.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jim Lewis:

Rich Goodale, an articulate observer about golf architecture matters, once expressed that many of our threads really aren't about golf architecture.  They are about a derivative of golf architecture.

This thread is an example.

I certainly didn't mean to question the importance of greens, green complexes, etc.  Nor did I mean to question the quality thereof as it pertains to Pacific Dunes, Crystal Downs or Pine Valley.

Rather, I merely meant to raise a question about golfers' memories, specifically whether we are able to remember greens when visiting a course one time as well as some might assume.

I simply think not.  Some real dramatic greens linger in our memories for a long time.  In most cases, however, the memory fades long before our overall impression of a golf hole or the entire course.

Tom Paul:

I now have more faith in our ability to communicate!

[paul albanese]

just like a movie -- you remember them if they are very good or very bad -- mediocrity is often forgotten

[archie struthers]

Tim

Putting is 30% of the game, approximately, but good putters are typically less admired than long hitters and brilliant ball strikers. One of the greatest players of any era, Ben Hogan, argued vehemently at times that putting was absolutely too important, alluding that if the game should be changed, you knew where to look first.

Bunkering is striking. Framing, a technique to catch the eye, is obvious but effective. Greens, really good greens, are subtle. They should tie into the landscape and blend, thus I believe they might not elicit an Oh, wow!  However, greens and the green complex are the heart and soul of a golf course, without good ones you have nothing.

I think only the most discerning golfers really notice subtle greens, and truly understand them. Its not just the putting but the way they set up the approach shots. For me, really good architecture starts at the green and works back to the tee, not visa versa.

 I don't disagree with your premise, but when you ask "do we really notice the greens" you are talking to an unusual cross section of golfers here, most of whom study the game to a much greater degree than most. For that reason your answer will be an unqualified absolutely in this forum.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Archie,

My impression remains that there was far less passion on the "who builds the best greens" thread than one would suspect if GCAers were really as focused on greens as much as you suggest.

It's so politically correct to suggest we look (or should look) at greens first and then work our way back to the tee, that maybe folks can't admit they really don't do that.

I hold to my view that other features on a golf course are far more likely to produce lasting memories than greens, even for your typical DG participant.

[TEPaul]

TimW:

I read back through this topic of yours and it's a good one. Archie Struther's last post says most about this subject so far, I think.

I believe, and I think Archie said as much, that just because a golfer (even quite an observant one) doesn't really notice a course's greens does not necessarily mean that they are not or cannot be good greens, or even very good or even great ones! And certainly when you qualify the question to the first visit.

This question can have much less to do with greens themselves in certain cases, even many cases, and much more to do with the application and existence of certain basic "art principles" or "sensory realities", if you will! In other words, there is only so much a golfer, or viewer can take in at once, particularly when trying to play golf too.

Many architects are aware of things like rhythm, balance, proportion and particularly what you're asking about "emphasis", when it comes to the "art" of golf architecture!

How much of that any architect truly concentrates on consciously is a good question! It's likely modern architects more than the older ones, since "art" principles and such have probably been applied more on modern golf courses than some of the older ones with things like the subject of "landscape architecture".

Did a man like George Crump concentrate on "art principles" when he spent five years on site at Pine Valley? Or, if he did, how much did he? I, for one,  don't know that he did! I have never seen anyone mention that he did with all the documentation of the creation of Pine Valley that I've recently looked through. And as you may know Crump died unexpectedly and the club at that time went through extraordinary efforts to document in detail what they thought Crump was interested in at Pine Valley and what he was trying to do.

But there is a lot going on "visually" at Pine Valley, like many other great courses, and the "emphasis" or the "visual focal points" are many and dramatic and clearly may pull the eye away from other things, like the greens, no matter that they also are world class!

Did a man like Crump mean to do that or even have that happen? I would bet that on both, he did not! He very well may not have even been aware of it or even aware of the subject since it seems he was concentrated on building some of the best holes in the world for strictly the "playability" of them!

But just to make the point visually; if you were to somehow pull away from the greens at Pine Valley, or many other courses with great greens that may not pop out visually, all that competes with them visually, you would likely see them as great greens indeed as they then would become the "emphasis" and visual "focal point", and you would see them for what the really are, sans the extreme visual competition they have!

[archie struthers]

Now that my friend Tom Paul has re-entered I'm going to use my friends favorite Heidi Klum, in an analogy.

You are at a party, Pamela Lee Anderson Kid Rock comes in dressed in her favorite heart stopping chic. Heidi also is there, but has purposefully dressed down and is doing her best to look demure. Now I know I'm starting to lose it!

Almost everybody will snap their neck as Pamela makes her entrance, and she is indeed wow! However on closer inspection, Heidi is the real deal. So it is with greens, the mystery unravels a little more slowly!

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul/Archie:

I think we'll all one the same page.  Pine Valley is a great example because it has such fabulous greens and so much else to distract first time visitors....... or Heidi dressed down vs Pamela Lee dressed up.

I never quite thought of that analogy the first time I played Pine Valley and has six three putt greens on my way to a brilliant 89.

Now, I don't know whether I should think about some supermodel next time I play PV.........it would probably take someone like JakaB to explain the theory to me.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()