The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture

[Jerry Lemons]

From the peanut gallery it seems that the yellow area is the most interesting.  If this is true then why is the green labelled "recommended"? To err on the safe side?

The green" is safe and to error on the conservative side.  The yellow is there for the person selecting hole locations to make sure and pay close attention to the area around the hole and the forecast that might speed the greens up and get too close to the Red area.

I remember Dr. Mike Hurdzan telling me once that "3% is the rule" not to exceed and never be afraid to break the rules at any time. When we start designing ANYTHING with rules, we will get hard engineered boring features in green complexes.

[Robin_Hiseman]

Robin:

I've been disappointed in your stands on a couple of topics this week and last.  It seems as though you are looking to become one of those guys who always wants to play it safe, even in the one location where 12 on the Stimpmeter is NOT becoming a common occurrence.  The decision is yours, of course, but if you adore greens with strong contour, maybe you should figure out how to build some greens that others will adore.

Tom

Right now I'd be glad to be building ANY greens, adored or not.

I've been out of my way on three different continents to play your courses. Each of the trips was well worth my time and I've taken plenty from what I saw.  Perhaps you should take the opportunity to reciprocate before you pass judgement on me.  I think the stuff I've done is towards the bolder end of the spectrum, which would be borne out by some of the comments made.  Adam Lawrence will give you a balanced opinion.  Ian Poulter may not!  Either way, I've put some time in to gain a better appreciation of the technical aspects of speed and slope, so that I know I'm going to get the hole locations I want and the client is too.   I think that is responsible design.  

As for St. Andrews, if that is what you're other disappointment refers to, I don't like the fact that the course is being altered, but I like even less the personal insults directed to those in charge of the changes.  I don't think they serve any positive purpose.  Do you?

[Mike Nuzzo]

Thanks Jerry
I was asking about the lines themselves
How did you define the lines?
Testing?
How did you perform this test?
Cheers

[Robin_Hiseman]

Apologies for messing up the quote format above.  Need a better technical understanding of how to do this it seems. 

[Jerry Lemons]

Thanks Jerry
I was asking about the lines themselves
How did you define the lines?
Testing?
How did you perform this test?
Cheers

Mike, Lots and lots of data collecting. Remember what you were doing after the 08' crash? I was stimping and rolling balls on fast and slow greens

[Patrick_Mucci]

While I concede it is very important for a green designer/builder to understand the slope/speed relationship, I hate these types of charts because they don't take into account how a clever designer can use slope to make a green work. You end up with clients, and their advisors, telling you things like, "it can't be more than 2.5% or keep it all under 2%. You can have greens with 4-5% slopes as long as you have a few speed bumps here and there. Just because a green might have some 4% doesn't mean every putt is going to run off the green. How that 4% ties in and works with the other slopes is what makes great greens. These guidelines don't measure talent.

Don, if "talent" equals "creativity" I agree.

And, not all of the entire putting surface needs to be pinable.
When I look at some of the classic greens with their spines, mounds, plateaus, bowls and contours, those features were intended as obstacles, not necessarily areas to accomodate hole locations.

A great putting surface should contain some of those features, or phrased another way, unique character.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ian, the numbers are the same. Just %slope VS degrees is all.

Robin, you made me chuckle about "your bent green" being what to watch. It matters not the type of surface. In fact a stimpmeter could be called a friction coefficient  measuring tool. You could use the same charts on ANY green, or material such as linoleum, glass, sandpaper, concrete etc.
A bentgrass green that has a 12' stimp reading is not any faster than a bermudagrass green with a 12' reading.

Jerry,

Years ago I walked into a carpet store with a stimpmeter under my arm.

The sales person asked me what the object under my arm was.
I told him a stimpmeter.
He asked what it was and why I brought it into the store.

I told him that I wanted to buy some carpet for my den and that I wouldn't buy any carpet that stimped at less than 10.
I then demonstrated it for him.
He clearly thought that I was crazy.

But, I bought a nice forest green carpet that stimped at better than 10.

One thing you should know about carpet.
It has grain 

I do know that once you get above 13.5 on a stimp, you had better have very flat greens to play the game.

And, NO WIND
Jerry

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul I have no idea. The new rule allowing no penalty if a ball moves on a green from wind makes it a moot point.

Not really.

That rule ONLY applies to a ball at rest.

[Tom_Doak]

One of the things that's been lost in this arbitrary discussion of slopes on greens is how the green fits into the landscape.

On older courses where the greens have more slope, it was possible to set a green into a slope very naturally.  Many golf courses have natural contour from 2 to 10 percent, and laying out a course on such ground only required the architect to find some of the flatter parts of the property for his green sites.

If we restrict greens to no more than 2.25 percent, it becomes a different story.  Now the majority of green sites have to be graded artificially, so they stand out in the landscape.  And if you're playing uphill to the green from 150 yards out, simple math shows that a green surface more than 10 feet above your eye level [450 ft * .0225] won't be visible, because you are looking up to it at more than a 2.25% incline.

I've been in Asia for two weeks, and it's maddening to see how every single golf course has been regraded from wall to wall, with much of the natural character of the sites sacrificed in the process.  And I'm seeing the better courses!  All these paint-by-numbers approaches to design are ruining the game, one new course at a time.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Interesting point.

At a club I'm very familiar with they decided to redesign a terrific old green.

During construction they mowed a portion of the fronting fairway to serve as a temporary green.

As that temporary green got mowed to lower and lower heights, the subtle undulations that existed as "fairway" became fabulous putting surface contours.   It was really quite remarkable.

Had that same area been chosen for an original green site in modern times, I'd agree with you in that chances are that it would be graded, thus removing and losing it's unique character and the marvelous contours Mother Nature created.