Great greens with little or no internal contour?

[PCCraig]

I grew up playing a lot of classic golf courses with greens that were slightly built up sloping primarily in one direction with only subtle internal contours. Seems today almost all new designs feature bigger greens with large swales and internal contours. My question is this: are there any great greens with little or no internal contours? Why aren't they built as much anymore?

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

I think that large contours appeal to a person's visual sense more than a green with subtle contours. Also, greens tend to be built more in tiers since people think greens have to be maintained madly fast and therefore must have some reasonably flat spots in order to accommodate hole locations. Other than that, I don't know.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat Craig,

I think you'd like Garden City's greens.

Other than # 4 and perhaps slight internal contours on  # 11 & 16 there's very little in the way of internal contours.

The challenge lies in the cant of the greens.  Some are high right to low left, others are high front to low back, others are high left to low right with two with high back low front cants.

They provide more than an ample challenge and make gaging slope and speed difficult.

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

Pat Craig,

I think you'd like Garden City's greens.

Other than # 4 and perhaps slight internal contours on  # 11 & 16 there's very little in the way of internal contours.

The challenge lies in the cant of the greens.  Some are high right to low left, others are high front to low back, others are high left to low right with two with high back low front cants.

They provide more than an ample challenge and make gaging slope and speed difficult.

Why do modern designers not build such greens? That is the heart of Pat's question.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jamie,

You'd have to ask the "Modern Designer's" wouldn't you.

[Chris Cupit]

#1 at TOC. Back to front pitch. Easy to play deep into that green and not realize the degree of slope. #11 of course has the obvious severe tilt but #1 can sneak up on you too

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat Craig,

Flat greens present drainage problems.

GCGC sits on the Hempstead Plain, the largest desert east of the Mississippi, so the greens drain well.

Perhaps that's a reason that modern architects avoid them.

[Philip Gawith]

Pat, Huntercombe has a very interesting set of greens which do not have much internal contour - at least not in the sense i think you mean. There is a lot of variety and one or two have big tiers, but essentially they are very old-fashioned, take the lie of the land and present a lot of interest, challenge and variety. I may try and present some pictures one day, though it can be difficult to capture the challenge which can be quite subtle.

[John Kirk]

Without a great deal of explanation, #11 at Bandon Trails has a big flat green that works great, given the hole's length and its hazards.  Very cool.

[Mark Chaplin]

Hanstanton - very fast and flat greens only the uphill par 4 6th(?) has much slope. Because the greens are fairly flat they can get away with them being faster.

[PCCraig]

Thanks for the responses everyone.

Pat Mucci:

Are the greens at Garden City elevated much around the surrounding area? Or since it's located in a desert were they able to build the greens closer to the ground? Just curious, as long as they are built up a little bit why are greens with less internal contour harder to drain?

Many of the classic courses around Chicago where I grew up are located on generally undesirable soil (clay crud really ) and the greens were built up ~3-10 feet mostly for drainage. Many of these greens were canted in a certain direction, usually sloping from back to front which left a steep drop off behind the green and usually featured a bunker or two. The "safe" play was usually to miss short, because up and downs were nearly impossible playing from the wrong side of the green. Through the green, the strategy was usually to place yourself in the right portion of the fairway so that you were looking straight up the green...regardless of the pin position.

Seems today that with larger greens with bigger swales and movement, many times the pin position dictates the placement of the tee ball. Would this mean the "classic" greens  are less strategic because they require similar tee shots on a day-to-day basis?

Are they not built any more because they are too penal? Because they're "boring" to the average golfer?

[Phil McDade]

Pat:

Flossmoor has a bunch; let me know and I can send/post a picture. Many are mere extensions of the fairway, with some not pushed up from their surrounds at all.

[JSlonis]

Thanks for the responses everyone.

Pat Mucci:

Are the greens at Garden City elevated much around the surrounding area? Or since it's located in a desert were they able to build the greens closer to the ground? Just curious, as long as they are built up a little bit why are greens with less internal contour harder to drain?

Many of the classic courses around Chicago where I grew up are located on generally undesirable soil (clay crud really ) and the greens were built up ~3-10 feet mostly for drainage. Many of these greens were canted in a certain direction, usually sloping from back to front which left a steep drop off behind the green and usually featured a bunker or two. The "safe" play was usually to miss short, because up and downs were nearly impossible playing from the wrong side of the green. Through the green, the strategy was usually to place yourself in the right portion of the fairway so that you were looking straight up the green...regardless of the pin position.

Seems today that with larger greens with bigger swales and movement, many times the pin position dictates the placement of the tee ball. Would this mean the "classic" greens  are less strategic because they require similar tee shots on a day-to-day basis?

Are they not built any more because they are too penal? Because they're "boring" to the average golfer?

Pat,

You'll find the greens at Garden City, except for #12 are built right at the same level as the fairway leading up to it.  They lay perfectly into the surrounding land.  It is this seemless transition that allows for more shot options and different challenges than you'd find at a lot of courses.

I don't know if I'd call the Hempstead Plain a desert area, but it is rather sandy and drains very well.  It's never a desert during the Travis tournament, it always rains like a sonof&%#$! 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Thanks for the responses everyone.

Pat Mucci:

Are the greens at Garden City elevated much around the surrounding area?

Some are elevated, some are at ground level.

# 2 is elevated as is # 4, # 6 and # 8.
Others emerge, seemlessly, from the fronting fairway..
Some, like # 10 and # 13 begin to fall below the fronting fairway.

Or since it's located in a desert were they able to build the greens closer to the ground? Just curious, as long as they are built up a little bit why are greens with less internal contour harder to drain?

That was thousands or millions of year ago.  The area developed into a sandy plain over time.
The soil is sandy allowing for deep bunkers that are entered vis a vis ladders.
The soil conditions also allow for good to very good surface drainage, on the fairways, greens and bunkers.

Many of the classic courses around Chicago where I grew up are located on generally undesirable soil (clay crud really ) and the greens were built up ~3-10 feet mostly for drainage. Many of these greens were canted in a certain direction, usually sloping from back to front which left a steep drop off behind the green and usually featured a bunker or two. The "safe" play was usually to miss short, because up and downs were nearly impossible playing from the wrong side of the green. Through the green, the strategy was usually to place yourself in the right portion of the fairway so that you were looking straight up the green...regardless of the pin position.

Seems today that with larger greens with bigger swales and movement, many times the pin position dictates the placement of the tee ball. Would this mean the "classic" greens  are less strategic because they require similar tee shots on a day-to-day basis?

Not really.

As an example, the third fairway cants from high right to low left, but the green cants from high left to low right.
This configuration typically produces a draw/hook on the approach, resulting in the ball being above the hole with a downhill putt.
It's an insidious arrangement, one lost on most golfers.

The 7th hole has a similar configuration on the right side of the fairway.

Other holes have left to right sloping fairways with left to right sloping greens, with nasty pot bunkers to the right, just waiting for the obtuse golfer or mishit shot.

Staying below the hole is critical, but, difficult to do, especially on the greens that slope away from you, with trouble long.
It's a great test, day in and day out.

Are they not built any more because they are too penal? Because they're "boring" to the average golfer?

I think golf went through a "framing" stage, where greens had to be framed, or easily put into reference by golfers.

GCGC's greens are difficult to detect because of the way they seemlessly transition out of the fairway.
There's no clear line of demarcation as there is on elevated greens.
And, because many, if not most of the bunkers are sunk, below grade, framing is absent.

I think modern architects, and golfers influenced by TV have shied away from this technique.

The funny thing is the following.

Several friends and acquaintances who were about to buy land and build a golf course called me and asked me what I thought they should build and who they should hire.

Invariably, I answered, if the soil conditions are favorable, build Garden City West.

Yet, other than Hidden Creek, no other new courses in NJ bear any resemblance to GCGC.

I like Bayonne, but, they could have easily built a GCGC West, as could Liberty National.

Instead, they chose a different style, a completely different style, although, I do like the style of Bayonne and what was accomplished from scratch.