Renovating Classic Greens in the Modern Era, thoughts...

[JSlonis]

Given some of the chatter on the Pine valley thread and others I have read in the past on GCA, I thought I'd post a new topic instead of hijacking another.

I was thinking about the renovation of some of these classic greens and I think the discussion deserves it's own topic.  Whenever the topic is mentioned, there seems to be an immediate negative comment about how it should never happen but I think we shouldn't be so quick to judge. The issue for playable conditions regarding slope, contour and speed is a delicate balance for sure but one that I feel can be done properly.

Obviously we all love many of the green designs at courses like Pine Valley, Merion, etc but when really analyzing these greens, we have to understand the green speeds at the time they were built and what the designers might have thought green speeds would become.  I would say for almost certain that the architects at the time could never have envisioned greens running at 11-12+ on a Stimp.  In that era, greens were near 4-6, with 6 being what they thought very fast.  We now have fairways that are quicker than that.  I just think it's important to think about that when people are quick to criticize clubs for softening current greens a bit.  I'm certainly not advocating flat greens, but I don't think the challenge is diminished much when you combine today's green speeds with some softening in certain areas.  If you take all the greens at PV for example and compared the challenge in putting at current speeds to that of 30 years ago, it's not even close. The greens would be incredibly easier with a stimp of 7-9 feet.  I don't see technology going backward in regard to agronomy or equipment, it never has.  So clubs have to deal with the present situation and determine what they feel is the correct way to present their course as a relevant challenge.  

[JESII]

Jamie,

I agree wholeheartedly with the only addition being that the process/rationale for altering a green should follow a protocol within the club...formal when the club is highly democratic with frequent regime changes, and informal when the club's governing body is more centered and longer term.

It's a slippery slope but an unavoidable one in my opinion...we ain't putting the genie back in the bottle...

[Tom_Doak]

Jamie:

It's a very good question and one of the toughest things we face when we are consulting on classic courses.

I will expand on this tomorrow and give some examples from our own work, but in addition to the philosophical issues, there is a technical issue very much at play:  that the aggressive sand topdressing programs implemented over the past 20-30 years are changing the contours of those old greens relative to everything around them, even if [and it's a big if] the contours of the green itself are relatively unchanged by such methods.  The change affects approach and recovery play, sometimes more significantly than you would imagine, for something that is only affecting the elevation of the greens a few inches at most ... but a few inches can make a big difference.

However, for now I'd like to question part of your premise which I hear a lot of others agree with ... that you "don't see technology going backward in regard to agronomy or equipment".  Many of the technological advances in agronomy were pursued with the idea that you could maintain greens at the same speed with less stress on the turf ... but instead they have been employed to increase green speeds, regardless of the effect on the health of the turf.  Is it INEVITABLE that this madness must continue?  Is it impossible to believe that just because we have nuclear weapons now, does not mean we HAVE to use them in war?

Back tomorrow with details of greens renovation work at Pasatiempo, SFGC, Garden City, and other fine clubs.

[JSlonis]

Jamie,

I agree wholeheartedly with the only addition being that the process/rationale for altering a green should follow a protocol within the club...formal when the club is highly democratic with frequent regime changes, and informal when the club's governing body is more centered and longer term.

It's a slippery slope but an unavoidable one in my opinion...we ain't putting the genie back in the bottle...

Jim,

Exactly.  I don't want to see clubs go overboard in this regard either.  First, it's costly and second it's probably not needed in many cases.  I just think that with a specific club or when discussing specific greens, people shouldn't be so quick to view the process as a totally negative thing.

It's a really tough subject that many of our classic courses are looking at and the varied politics at those clubs make it even more so.

[JSlonis]

Tom,

Thank you very much for your insight, I look forward to your thoughts.  What I meant about the advancements in agronomy/equipment is that I just don't see clubs rolling back green speeds any time soon.  I certainly don't want to see old clubs really flatten out some great designs in order to pursue even higher speeds than we are seeing now. 

We did a year long study of our greens at Tavistock CC (Built in 1921) last year.  5 years ago we underwent a renovation/restoration with Jim Nagle from Forse Design.  At the time, we were able to recapture another 20-30% of greenspace that had been lost over time.  We also regrassed with some newer strains of bent.  Working with Jim has been a great education for me in regard to learning about the percentage of slope and what areas are pinnable based on certain green speeds. Our greens have quite a bit of slope and contour in them and through daily stimp readings we were able to find a target speed that we thought presented our membership with the best balance of challenge and playability.  The end result is that we thought a speed of 10.5 was our best target number. 

[Jud_T]

Seems to me it gets to be a very delicate balancing act.  If a couple inches of topdressing can significantly impact approach shots/chips, then simply flattening to accommodate today's speeds can also have a significant effect vs. the GCA's original intent.  Doesn't one have to then reshape the green contours beyond simply flattening a contour?

[Howard Riefs]

Jamie -

To provide a recent example...

Over Thanksgiving week, I enjoyed a couple rounds at Sankaty Head Golf Club, a 1921 design on Nantucket. The course was in the process of restoring/reshaping two greens to reduce the slope, which would thereby allow for the faster green speeds and increase the cupping options.  The project was approved by their Greens Committee 10 to 1 and then unanimously by its board.

Here's the background from my earlier write up.

The only real disappointment is that we played two temporary greens:
-- #3: 198 yards into the wind; large, slightly elevated green
-- #5: Significantly downhill; 423 yards; steep back-to-front green; signature hole that overlooks the lighthouse

But it was for good reason.  From late Sept. to early Nov., the standard greens were restored and reshaped.  I learned more about the work from an insightful article in the club’s quarterly newsletter. To paraphrase…

Background
-- As a course built in the early 1920s, the greens reflected the design concept of the time, and speeds were typically in the 4 to 7 range as opposed to today’s higher speeds.  At Sankaty Head the green speed is regularly in the 9-10 range.

-- According to the article, the USAGA recommends cupping areas should not have slopes exceeding 2.5 percent.  The club Green Committee and members considered the greens on holes 3 and 5 as too steep, and started a process to “moderately adjust” their slope and pitch.  
-- The project affords more space on greens 3 and 5 to place cups without the problem of the ball rolling off the green when the speed is at 9 or higher, or when there’s a strong wind.  

Green #5
-- The average slope on #5 was 7.8 percent and was adjusted to approximately 4 percent; the green kept its back-to-front slope
-- While the cup previously could have been cut on 5 to 7 percent of the green, it can now be cut on 30 to 35 percent of the green, including the back of the green, which was previously untouchable

Green #3
-- The slope was reduced 1 percent

[Dale Jackson]

Jamie, a great topic I have spent some time thinking about.  I am a member at a club that celebrates its centenary next year, we have 15 original greens, and our course is highly regarded for the quality and challenge of its greens.  Of the three "new" greens (all are about 30 years old), 2 were rebuilt because of the severe slopes.  Neither, IMO, were sympathetic rebuilds.

Four of the original greens are severely sloped with today's green speeds and we cannot have them stamp above 10.5.  A large portion of the membership would like to rebuild those greens, while another portion are adamantly opposed.

In a perfect world, I would support rebuilding IF the original contours could be maintained but softened just slightly.  The concern many of us have is how to proceed with a guarantee that nothing more than a "softening" is undertaken.  And how can that be guaranteed technically (archies please chime in) and politically.  It would be too easy for decision makers to take a rebuild too far and end up with a project that destroys the architectural value of those greens, and once done there is no going back.  

[JNagle]

Jamie -

We always have to look at each project on a case by case basis.  While working on the 18th at Tavistock we were also rebuilding three greens at Springfield C.C. (OH - Donald Ross) for the exact same reasons - speed increases created limited cupping.  Both projects involved a "push-up" style green with no drainage being installed and therefore no layering during construction.  Your course, Tavistock, has a different standard of green speed vs. Springfield.  At least one foot or more on the stimpmeter.  The faster greenspeeds at Tavistock did not diminish the overall quality, i.e. contour, slopes and internal character, it just required a little more restraint.  However, rebuilding the greens at Springfield did make for more opportunities to create greater internal character due to the allowance of cupping areas up to 4.5%.  At Tavistock we were limited to 3.5% +/-.  That 1% difference does create some softening of the greens, but they are no less difficult.  The inherent subtleties of Flynn greens can provide fits for the best putters, yet the abrupt apparent slopes on greens by other architects can be (in some instances) easier to putt.  The lines are more visible.  We will be interested to hear about the 18th after it opens this summer.

[Tim Nugent]

Four of the original greens are severely sloped with today's green speeds and we cannot have them stamp above 10.5.  A large portion of the membership would like to rebuild those greens, while another portion are adamantly opposed.

In a perfect world, I would support rebuilding IF the original contours could be maintained but softened just slightly.  The concern many of us have is how to proceed with a guarantee that nothing more than a "softening" is undertaken.  And how can that be guaranteed technically (archies please chime in) and politically.  It would be too easy for decision makers to take a rebuild too far and end up with a project that destroys the architectural value of those greens, and once done there is no going back.  

Dale, with todays GPS surveying and CAD design this is quite easy.
1) Survey the existing green.  Create a 3-D computer model of the existing contours
2) measure all the slopes and current Stempmeter speeds.
3) decide how much "softening" is desired.
4) draw new contours and upload them into the GPS
5) Stake out the new design
6) check the construction every step of the way to insure it conforms to the design
7) compare the as-built to the as-planned prior to seeding.
when you are happy, seed, water and wait.
9) enjoy your new green.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Classic Greens should not be modified or changed. Any renovation work must be sympathetic and conducted in the same format in which the Green was originally constructed.

Failure to proceed along these lines makes the whole process of maintaining or trying to maintain old courses irrelevant IMHO.

Want to tinker, find other newer courses. Members bored with the course go find another course to play.

By retaining the classic courses defines the current golfers as a custodian of our past great courses, which we have no right modifying and thus preventing later generations the same pleasure afforded us by our forefathers.

Classic courses come with a duty of care, ignore that then why maintain them at all.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Dale, with todays GPS surveying and CAD design this is quite easy.
3) decide how much "softening" is desired.
4) draw new contours and upload them into the GPS
5) Stake out the new design
6) check the construction every step of the way to insure it conforms to the design

Tim
Have you done this before?  It sounds like you haven't.

Please explain #4 - have you uploaded contours to a GPS unit?
What method do you use to check if it conforms in step #6
Have you GPS'd the sub-grade before, the gravel too?

Dale it is possible - but certainly not easy
#3 is a big deal - and unlikely to be agreed upon if the membership can't decide if they should be changed or not - hopefully the architect is good enough to decide for you
Do you have a consulting architect that has offered an opinion?

cheers

[Cristian]

Jamie, a great topic I have spent some time thinking about.  I am a member at a club that celebrates its centenary next year, we have 15 original greens, and our course is highly regarded for the quality and challenge of its greens.  Of the three "new" greens (all are about 30 years old), 2 were rebuilt because of the severe slopes.  Neither, IMO, were sympathetic rebuilds.

Four of the original greens are severely sloped with today's green speeds and we cannot have them stamp above 10.5.  A large portion of the membership would like to rebuild those greens, while another portion are adamantly opposed.

In a perfect world, I would support rebuilding IF the original contours could be maintained but softened just slightly.  The concern many of us have is how to proceed with a guarantee that nothing more than a "softening" is undertaken.  And how can that be guaranteed technically (archies please chime in) and politically.  It would be too easy for decision makers to take a rebuild too far and end up with a project that destroys the architectural value of those greens, and once done there is no going back.  

Whatever they do, don't let them touch your 17th green!

[Melvyn Morrow]

Soon all we are going to be left with re GCA is the modern rubbish to combat the modern technology. All that will be left of the work of the previous Golden Ages will be the writings of some of the ODG with precious little else on the ground.

Just because modern club members can’t play as their forefathers, so we just destroy past Greens for their fleeting pleasure.

Come on guys, yes I talking to the designers, you DO have a responsibility like it or not because your designs will destroy history, the work of past great designers, leaving sweet FA for future generations. Stand up, show clients the errors of their ways and what they are about to destroy, because once gone that’s it, they lose that physical connection with our past heroes.

But then I suppose you have to care, to stand up and be counted, how many do?.

[JC Urbina]

JSlonis,

[Melvyn Morrow]

To those interested

From time to time we get a great topic on this site that oozes GCA and through it the potential errors clubs/committees/designers have made over the 80 years. When someone interjects a comment that perhaps others had not considered (and indeed should have considered it’s their industry), which goes against the flow this site drops it like a tin of worms. Oh yes your guys also kill the worms these days too.

What is happening to this site that you can’t face such things, surely it can’t be that you never considered that we are destroying the works of others and the reason why these clubs associate themselves with the past great golf course designers.

I cannot believe its little old me that you are running from; I took you the members of GCA.com to cars about All aspects of GCA.

[Jerry Kluger]

I have questioned how many clubs would want to have Oakmont's greens combined with their green speeds.  It seems to me that nearly all golfers would get tired of regularly three-putting and sometimes four-putting greens the greens at their home course.  Somehow Oakmont pulls it off because it was designed to be an extremely difficult course but to my way of thinking that is not what members want at their club. 

Perhaps it should be viewed as the creation of more hazards around the course where there is a penalty stroke involved everytime you hit in the wrong place on a green.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Dale,

Nuzzo's right.

'Softening' is possible. But the big issue is indeed, who's going to decide 'how much softening is desired'? Too much 'softening' and the character of the green is gone; too little and people will then ask if the costs of 'softening' were worth it?

And, even with the technologies available today, this work is very delicate. I tend to stay away from agreeing to 'soften' a green that's been around for nearly 100 years unless there are really serious issues which need to be resolved. I've seen too many really cool old greens 'softened' to horrible affect simply because a couple powerful individuals at a club think 'there aren't enough hole locations'.   

Your club has a few examples, as you've mentioned

[jeffwarne]

Jamie,

I agree wholeheartedly with the only addition being that the process/rationale for altering a green should follow a protocol within the club...formal when the club is highly democratic with frequent regime changes, and informal when the club's governing body is more centered and longer term.

It's a slippery slope but an unavoidable one in my opinion...we ain't putting the genie back in the bottle...

Which club will have the balls to be the first to put the genie "back in the bottle"

Courses have always evolved and been renovated,
Eventually many get restored.
Perhaps a great course with distinctive greens will hold the line(or even back up) on speed even if agronomically available and resist the pressure from the course down the street with "faster" greens.

One day players who truly seek a challenge will realize SLOWER greens with the slope allowable for that speed are infinitely tougher to putt as there is a huge difference in the judgement and stroke required on a downhill putt vs. uphill on such a green.
 Fast greens with correspondingly less slope make the difference between an uphill putt and a downhill putt far less, lessen the requirement for hitting a putt solid, and allow players to make a much smaller (therefore easier) stroke than they otherwise would need.
(most players fail to understand or want to admit this)

To say nothing of the fact that a slower green can generally be safely  maintained firmer, thus exponentially increasing the affect that the extra allowable slope will have on players who approach a green from out of position.


many will comment they love scary fast greens.
I love scary fast PUTTS.
If you don't understand the difference, you missed my point.

Look at the resoration at Pinehurst.
10 years ago not many would've predicted that.

Perhaps some club relevant in the golf world will actually address green speed and contour in such a manner. (Tom Doak and Ballyneal did a wonderful job with this and many don't get it)
For the moment, I'm pissing into the wind, but time will tell.

[JNagle]

I don't believe softening must always imply a deviation from the original or at least a deviation from the architects style.  Now style becomes "site specific"  What one architect does on one property is not always necessarily what he did on another.  One must also consider "design intent" for that specific hole (i.e. preferred angles, approach shot trajectory, tucked hole locations, wind, ..........) if there is ever the consideration of rebuilding a specific green.  The architect must be willing to investigate the other 17 original greens and meld a  renovated green with the others.  We have seen all too many times where one specific green sticks out like a sore thumb because one architect would rather leave their mark than attempt to match the existing styles.  Sensitivity to the course must be paramount, not our own ego. 

I for one do not think that all greens can be saved by simply backing off of green speeds.  There are instances where the size and contour of a particular green cannot keep up with the number of rounds played and the severity of the existing slopes.  It becomes to much of a challenge to maintain and provide a fair challenge.  We see clients that have mowers set at varied heights so that particular greens are mowed higher than others just to keep all ball from rolling off the front.  There are practical ways to solve the problem and remain true to the original intent and appearance.  That is the key - original intent and appearance.

[Tom_Doak]

Dale, with todays GPS surveying and CAD design this is quite easy.
1) Survey the existing green.  Create a 3-D computer model of the existing contours
2) measure all the slopes and current Stempmeter speeds.
3) decide how much "softening" is desired.
4) draw new contours and upload them into the GPS
5) Stake out the new design
6) check the construction every step of the way to insure it conforms to the design
7) compare the as-built to the as-planned prior to seeding.
when you are happy, seed, water and wait.
9) enjoy your new green.

Tim:

I don't agree with your characterization of this as "easy".  A confident heart surgeon might tell you that open-heart surgery is easy, too, but they are also obliged to tell you that you might die on the operating table!

It's easy to draw a new green, and it may be easy to build one.  It is not at all easy to get the shaping to be indistinguishable from a bunch of older greens; your example assumes that the contours you draw will fit perfectly by eye on the site.  Let's just say I have seen a whole bunch of new greens on older courses over the years, which were easy to pick out as having been rebuilt.  Of course, this is partly true because not all architects are sympathetic to older work, and are out of their element working on an old course.

And no matter the design, it is VERY hard to get the agronomy of a new green to match up to that of a bunch of old greens.  We've struggled with this on several occasions, even with the best advice in the business on the agronomy side, and with excellent greenkeepers in charge of them.  You can't really replicate the original construction method of the green, because the last thirty years of sand topdressing have changed the construction; yet a new USGA green doesn't relate well to an old green that's been topdressed for years, either.

I try hard not to rebuild greens if I don't have to.  Still, over the past twenty years, I have "softened" at least one green at Mid Ocean Club, Pasatiempo, The Valley Club, Holston Hills, White Bear Yacht Club, San Francisco Golf Club, and most recently at Royal Melbourne (East).  If you can tell me which greens we softened, then you win a prize but prove my point at the same time; if you can't tell, then maybe you are right that it can be done successfully.  But I will tell you that I still lose sleep over a couple of these; I'd really have preferred not to rebuild them at all, but they weren't even close to being playable at 11 or 12 on the Stimpmeter.  And I am holding my breath over the day when Crystal Downs suddenly decides that THEY need to change a couple of greens.

The one I felt the worst about was the 14th green at Holston Hills, a difficult par-3 with a very severe green.  It was clear it had to be re-done, but that whole course was so close to the original Donald Ross construction that I felt terrible about tearing anything up. 

Imagine my relief, then, when we dug into the low side of the green and found that it had already been raised at least six inches by someone else years before! 

[JSlonis]

Tom/Jim,

Thanks so much for your thoughts on this subject. When we get such great insight from experts in the field like yourselves, there is no better forum than GCA to learn more in regard to architecture.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Another great issue and thread totally fudged

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

Melvyn:

[Ian Larson]

Four of the original greens are severely sloped with today's green speeds and we cannot have them stamp above 10.5.  A large portion of the membership would like to rebuild those greens, while another portion are adamantly opposed.

In a perfect world, I would support rebuilding IF the original contours could be maintained but softened just slightly.  The concern many of us have is how to proceed with a guarantee that nothing more than a "softening" is undertaken.  And how can that be guaranteed technically (archies please chime in) and politically.  It would be too easy for decision makers to take a rebuild too far and end up with a project that destroys the architectural value of those greens, and once done there is no going back.  

Dale, with todays GPS surveying and CAD design this is quite easy.
1) Survey the existing green.  Create a 3-D computer model of the existing contours
2) measure all the slopes and current Stempmeter speeds.
3) decide how much "softening" is desired.
4) draw new contours and upload them into the GPS
5) Stake out the new design
6) check the construction every step of the way to insure it conforms to the design
7) compare the as-built to the as-planned prior to seeding.
when you are happy, seed, water and wait.
9) enjoy your new green.

Tim is correct this is easy. Using a Trimble GPS with the newest software and the newest version of AutoCAD Civil 3D. The GPS unit is accurate within an inch. Upload the existing elevations you mapped with the device. In the ACAD Civil raise the lowest points to the new elevation you want and lower the highest points the elevation you want...bam, softened green. In the field, just like Tim said, restake all of the points mapped with the new and old elevations and move the dirt or sand accordingly. Float it and do a seamless tie-in. It really is easy. Push-up piece of cake. USGA, a little more complicated. But nonetheless pretty easy stuff.

The value of doing it this way is the benefit of mapping out the contours to what you want exactly on the computer with the ability to calculate all of the slope percentages you need to see and can then move dirt more efficiently in the field. No move measure, move measure, move measure. Very important if the scenario includes a USGA green. Layers make it complicated and costly. Needs to be done right the first time with minimum time down for the clientele.