Are Severe Green Contours Warranted?

[Tom_Doak]

I started to type this on another thread, but didn't want to hijack it, so I've made it a separate topic here.

There have been many courses designed in recent years where severe greens have later been softened, either with the architect's participation, or not.  I can think of examples from many well-known designers, including myself.

Is this a good example of an architect taking a design risk, or is it a mild form of malpractice with other people's money? 

That's really a three-part question:

1.  Did you understand how severe you were making this green?
2.  Did you intend to make it that severe, or did it just turn out more severe than you intended?
3.  Was it a mistake to build something so severe, or was it a thoughtful design risk?  Will you make a green as severe on your next course, or on some course in the future?

Are there right or wrong answers to these questions?  I'm not sure of that.  Whether the result is a success or a disaster is generally a matter of opinion -- whether the green is TOO severe for playability is rarely a black-and-white question.  But, my experience is that not many clients appreciate having to go back and make changes afterward, either for the disruption to the membership or for the reputational effect on the course.

[Niall C]

Tom

Presumably you are also a hostage to fortune to a certain extent in that a lot would depend on the maintenance practice initiated by the client, no ?

Niall

[JESII]

Tom,

I would think not knowing how severe the green was going to come out is a form of malpractice...it essentially says the architect didn't know what they were doing, doesn't it?

[PCCraig]

Tom,

Can you define "Severe." Severe as in it's a difficult green to putt? Do players putt off it in certain situations? Just too much slope?

Can you name a few greens that you've built that you would consider close to severe (or just severe all together )?

[Kalen Braley]

If I was an owner and hired an architect...I would probably handle it somewhere along the lines of what Mike K did at Bandon.

See the hole and green contours, before its seeded, and then give the thumbs or thumbs down.  Then the architect would be at least mostly off the hook.  But I don't know how practical it is for the owner to do this or if this is even a common practice.

That being said, I love wild greens so I'm having a hard time seeing something too severe for my "dream course"

[BCrosby]

Tom,

I would think not knowing how severe the green was going to come out is a form of malpractice...it essentially says the architect didn't know what they were doing, doesn't it?

I might cut the architect a bit more slack. But if speeds are so severe that the green needs to be rebuilt, that sounds to me like professional negligence per se. In such cases why shouldn't the achitect be on the hook for the cost of the redo?

Bob

[jeffwarne]

I started to type this on another thread, but didn't want to hijack it, so I've made it a separate topic here.

There have been many courses designed in recent years where severe greens have later been softened, either with the architect's participation, or not.  I can think of examples from many well-known designers, including myself.

Is this a good example of an architect taking a design risk, or is it a mild form of malpractice with other people's money? 

That's really a three-part question:

1.  Did you understand how severe you were making this green?
2.  Did you intend to make it that severe, or did it just turn out more severe than you intended?
3.  Was it a mistake to build something so severe, or was it a thoughtful design risk?  Will you make a green as severe on your next course, or on some course in the future?

Are there right or wrong answers to these questions?  I'm not sure of that.  Whether the result is a success or a disaster is generally a matter of opinion -- whether the green is TOO severe for playability is rarely a black-and-white question.  But, my experience is that not many clients appreciate having to go back and make changes afterward, either for the disruption to the membership or for the reputational effect on the course.

It would depend greatly on whether the client maintains the green speed he and the architect had agreed upon/discussed prior to designing the green. and of course if the green came out as the architect originally intended (we're going to assume it did)

Sadly, one would assume an architect would have to design greens with less slope than he might otherwise, knowing that the next great turf "advance" may be just around the corner, giving advertised green speeds of 19(which would mean they were 14 )
If one were to design that way, he would already be comprimising the course, much like the elasticity that an architect often builds in lengthwise knowing the USGA will find no fault with the next Rocket balls 4 that go 30 more yards

[JESII]

Tom,

I would think not knowing how severe the green was going to come out is a form of malpractice...it essentially says the architect didn't know what they were doing, doesn't it?

I might cut the architect a bit more slack. But if speeds are so severe that the green needs to be rebuilt, that sounds to me like professional negligence per se. In such cases why shouldn't the achitect be on the hook for the cost of the redo?

Bob

I don't know Bob...if the architect plans an area of the green to be 2 or 3% and pinnable and it comes out 4 of 5% and hardly pinnable, if at all we've got a problem.

Tom, in answer to your thread question...I think building sever greens is a good design risk even if it results in the client changing it in the near future. Avoiding that risk cannot result in ever improving green complexes in my opinion.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Personally I like them by and large but its certainly not everyones cup of tea, equally you cant please everyone. I think you need a fair amount of pinnable space and some greens with severe contours and then coupled with potential 11+ green speeds  often need to be double in size say 1,000 sq yards, that sometimes can look a bit ugly, can be expensive in some locations and even quite diffcult to irrigate. I quite like quick breaks of say 250mm rather than that 'deepie' on the 8th at Kingsbarns. I thought the Castle Course was too steep (only saw a couple) and from TV Chambers Bay had contours beyond reasonable.

From my constructions I know I have made mistakes and pushed it too far and sometimes we have ripped a big part up after rootzooning and started again (very costly in USGA).

My rule for ok/not acceptable is more about having enough fair pin positions, I have 1 on my CV which is a baddie.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Shouldn't every course have a couple of greens that push the limit, or teeter just over the edge?

Gonna get pretty boring when the specs contain notes like...[ no "pinnable" green surface can exceed 1.5% and no "transitions" can exceed 5%]...or maybe those specs are already in some design documents.

IMO, every course needs one or two crazy greens to act as a governor on green speeds. Make 'em all flat and the race is on.    

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - this reminds me of the story about a small band of ancient Greeks who were preparing to go into battle against a much larger force. A soldier asks his General if they should seek a word of prophesy from the Oracle at Delphi, a prediction of the battle's outcome; and the General replies: "Why would we do that? If the Oracle told us that we're going to be defeated and that we'll all be killled, would it change our duty to fight?"

I think this is a question/issue that falls under the umbrella of 'conscious intention'.  If memory serves me right, at a course you designed earlier in your career, you consciously created a set of severely contoured greens.  I assume that 1) you did understand how severe you were making them, 2) the greens did not turn out (by accident/poor workmanship) more severe than you intended, and c) it was a thoughtful design risk and not a mistake.  

If the Oracle at Delphi had predicted that the client would in time not be so enamoured of those severe greens, would it have changed your duty to build what you believed to be the best course you could?

Peter  

[Matt MacIver]

Wild greens are great if there were PLANNED – emphasis added.  I think they get criticized (and thus changed) for several of the reasons given above:

•   Technology changes
•   Ownership / membership changes
•   Lack of understanding on original intent

Was the PLAN (and resulting golf course) FULLY 100% thought-out and well documented to begin with?  If it was a half-a$$ed plan/design to begin with (didn’t take into account maintenance costs, average customer, playability, time to play, etc. then it probably won’t hold up over time. 

Do architects leave behind a User’s Manual after each course they build discussing maintenance expectations, the shot type expected at each hole, risk-reward options, routing issues and timing, etc., so future generations / owners can stay true to the course (or at least make educated changes)? 

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

I have to ask...

Have you ever considered doing something as severe as the practice green at Pacific Dunes, and putting it onto a course?

#8 Green at Ballyneal is the most severe green I can think of that your team has done.

[Brian Chapin]

For the most part I agree with Don.  If all 18 are so severe as to cause problems than I think the designer made a mistake, but where would we be today if designers of the past hadn't taken risks? I'm a super, not a designer and I think there are times when the risk is probably appropriate and times when it is not.  Short Par 3... drive-able par 4... make it tough and be bold.  I think being bland is almost more of a risk than potentially too severe.  After all, we can always slow the green down like so many are suggesting we do at the golden age courses.

This makes me wonder... Do you think some of the more severe greens of the golden age were risky in their time?  I can think of a number of pretty steep and severe greens that would be risky at almost any speed.  16 @ Pasatiempo, 7 @ Shinnecock, 2 @ Somerset and a few at Fenway come to mind.  Here at Paramount we have a couple greens that are very difficult even when the speeds are below 10 (#'s 12, 14, 9).

I don't think its malpractice or a waste of an owners money to be bold/risky in a few areas.  I think that is a large part of what separates good from great.


 

[Michael George]

I think that only the extremes can be deemed malpractice.  For instance, if the greens are absolutely unplayable, it could be malpractice.  I also think if a client wants undulating greens and the architect builds flat greens, it could be malpractice.  However, I think they have to be EXTREMES and I honestly don't know if I have ever played a course that I would consider malpractice.  Simply stated,  it would be the death nell to risk taking by architects in golf course design if it was any different.

I largely think the question is answered by knowing who your client is.  An architect does not build a course for himself or the golfer, he builds the course for the person or persons that are paying that architect.  If those person(s) want severe, risk taking greens (and are willing to live with lower stimp speeds), than the architect should push the envelope.  If those person(s) want high stimp speeds and are willing to give on undulations in the greens, then that is what the architect should do.  Now, I think the architect as the expert should try and convince the client of his ideas.  However, the client has the last say so and the architect should not take the engagement or should resign if he is not comfortable with it.

Best example that I know of is Old Macdonald.  There is no way that TD and JU build those greens for a client without first talking to the client about them.  I am damn glad that Mike Keiser approved them as they are as entertaining as any greens that I have played.  

[Tom_Doak]

Tom

Presumably you are also a hostage to fortune to a certain extent in that a lot would depend on the maintenance practice initiated by the client, no ?

Niall

Niall:

In several cases early in my career, and one or two more recently, I've discussed the topic of slope and speed with clients AT LENGTH before we built the course.  In two or three of those cases, the client has told me a specific green speed to target in our work, only to renege on what we agreed within a year or two of opening, with the green speeds significantly faster than what I'd designed for.

As someone else alluded, it doesn't take many such instances before an architect must conclude that the greens will be faster than he wants no matter what the client may say, and design them cautiously on that basis.  But if you want to include some difficult greens in the course, it's very hard to know where to draw the line anymore.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom - this reminds me of the story about a small band of ancient Greeks who were preparing to go into battle against a much larger force. A soldier asks his General if they should seek a word of prophesy from the Oracle at Delphi, a prediction of the battle's outcome; and the General replies: "Why would we do that? If the Oracle told us that we're going to be defeated and that we'll all be killled, would it change our duty to fight?"

I think this is a question/issue that falls under the umbrella of 'conscious intention'.  If memory serves me right, at a course you designed earlier in your career, you consciously created a set of severely contoured greens.  I assume that 1) you did understand how severe you were making them, 2) the greens did not turn out (by accident/poor workmanship) more severe than you intended, and c) it was a thoughtful design risk and not a mistake.  

If the Oracle at Delphi had predicted that the client would in time not be so enamoured of those severe greens, would it have changed your duty to build what you believed to be the best course you could?

Peter  

Peter:

That's precisely what I'm trying to ask ... although my way of asking was much more technical and much less philosophical.  Thanks for restating it more beautifully.

As to the answer ... this week, I'm struggling with it.  I am fairly certain that my sense of "duty to build what I believed to be the best course I could" has been responsible for my success, in an industry where many others are just settling for a safe result that might get them a good recommendation from their client. 

I've always seen myself as trying to build courses that compete with the best -- and my observations of the best courses were that they often had some of the most severe greens of any courses I'd seen, rather than some of the least severe greens.  It's funny that many observers say "those greens at Oakmont were never intended to be as fast as they are today," which is surely correct -- and yet, Oakmont is ranked a great course TODAY with the green speeds they have TODAY, not based on the green speeds they had in 1910.

[George Pazin]

How difficult is it to handle pitch versus contour? As an example, the greens at Oakmont appear to be more pitched than the greens at Augusta, but less severely contoured. Is one easier or harder than the other?

Apologies if this is a threadjack. I'm just amazed at how fast they maintain the greens at Oakmont and Augusta, and they are not remotely flat in any sense of the word. It almost seems they are given a pass, at least relative to the difficulty of other greens.

[Duncan Cheslett]

There have been many courses designed in recent years where severe greens have later been softened, either with the architect's participation, or not.  I can think of examples from many well-known designers, including myself.

It's not just in recent years. I immediately found myself thinking of Sitwell Park - Dr Mac's wild greens were 'softened' almost immediately and no trace has remained for nigh on 100 years.

Were those greens a mistake, or was the mistake made in removing them?  From the famous photos of them I can't help thinking that Mac must have been on the Scotch that day!

[Terry Lavin]

I think Tom's Lost Dunes is the best example of how this construct could work quite well.  Lost Dunes has a bunch of severe greens, with some wild internal contours.  The owner was given all information and gave his informed consent.  They very seldom let the greens get over 9.5 on the Stimpmeter, according to what I've been told.  So the player is left with severe contours at a relatively manageable speed.  Now, don't get me wrong, I can see how this business model could go wrong, but with the right architect/owner/members alliance, it can really produce a fun experience.

[Chris Kane]

But, my experience is that not many clients appreciate having to go back and make changes afterward, either for the disruption to the membership or for the reputational effect on the course.

You could flip this around and talk about the reputational effect on an architect of inappropriate maintenance practices! Tom, if you build severe greens intended for greens speeds of say 8-10, and greens are subsequently prepared for speeds of 12, I presume that much of the extensive work you do to get the balance right around pitch and contouring goes out the window. The perception will be "Doak built ridiculous greens" when in fact you did nothing of the sort.
 
One of the more frustrating aspects of being a golf course architect must be having a body of work where the presentation is mostly out of your control...and at times being judged on it.

[Adrian_Stiff]

There is a fine line between great and cack with green slope, but it can go cack with a bad pin placement rather than a design error. I think if you are on the green you should always be able to stop the ball within 2 feet past the hole, if a ball rolls on its own gravity 8 feet past the base of a slope then within 6 foot is that limit ( 2 feet being the maximum roll on a fast green for a holed ball that missed!) That could mean certain setions of a green at 11 or 12 stimp are a no go, but if there are a few flat areas or flattish areas where proper golf can be played its within limits. The real problem is the fast speeds (double figures plus). Fast greens need flat greens and thats a fact that is not going to go away.

[Jason Topp]

If I were the client, I would want the designer to lay out the options, identify the advantages and disadvantages of an approach and allow me to have significant input on this issue. 

I could see one owner willing to be bold and recognize that later softening costs is an acceptable risk in exchange for getting the best product the architect thinks he can achieve.  I suspect a different owner would not want to rebuild greens that have already been made and would view such an approach as malpractice.

This thread reminds me of seeing our practice green at the time the USGA Rock layers were in but soil had not been put in place.  I thought that the slope looked way too severe but recognized I did not have experience with the final product.  I wish I would have said something.  We have to deal with proposals to blow up and rebuild the practice green every yearn in the Green Committee.  Ironically, I like the severe slope that we got.

[Jud_T]

I think particularly for a members course where guys (and gals) may be playing a couple hundred rounds, the answer is an unqualified YES!
My old club had some of the best conditioned, most pinable (sp?) greens in town that were all of a piece, with very little additional interest other than "stay below the hole on #'s 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 14 ,15 & 16".  It all got a bit tiresome after 10 years of 30+ rounds a year...

[Kalen Braley]

For us yanks....

"List of British words not widely used in the United States"

"cack -   (slang) faeces (feces); nonsense or rubbish: "what a load of cack" could equally be used to describe someone talking nonsense or as a criticism of something of poor quality. Also spelt "kak" as used in Dutch. Derived from an ancient Indo-European word, kakkos, cognate with German word Kacke, Welsh word "cach" and the Irish Gaelic word "cac" which means 'shit'."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_words_not_widely_used_in_the_United_States