What makes/are the best elevated greens, subtle and bold ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

In reviewing the green complexes at NGLA I was fascinated by the variety in their elevations, and how that can challenge the player to consider the different methods of approach, especially when hole locations vary.

What architects and courses present this variety and challenge in elevated green complexes.

Are the subtle elevations more difficult to play to then the bold elevations  ?

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, I think that almost every golf course architect or designer thinks automatically in terms of elevated green sites.  I don't think many explore routes that lead to flat or sunken green sites as a matter of practicality to achieve drainage and surrounds bunkering.  Particularly the GCAs of bygone eras where drainage engineering was too expensive and equipment not able to accomplish the task.  The sandy sites that had deep natural on site drainage may be where low profile greens were attempted.  So, as they routed their courses over parkland parcels, they needed to find or manufacture elevated sites.  The more dramatic the rise into the green site, the more of a run-up area would be needed.  

My best examples of these elevated green sites that were mostly manufactured is here at Lawsonia where Wm. Langford had a strong tendancy to use knoll tops or build the greens up really high.  But, most of them have that area where a run-on approach could be attempted.  Also, the steeper the elevations or rise up to the green, the larger the requirement for large putting area and more tendancy to have terraces.

Obviously, that same tendancy for designing elevated greens was the prescription for C.B., Raynor, and Banks for their pattern holes.  You can't very well have a double plateau, or knoll or such without the elevation.  Oddly enough, even a punchbowl needs some elevation from the surrounds to give it the depth within the bowl.

This brings me to consider the really unique approach to elevation that Hanse took at Rustic Canyon.  Among several low profile greensites, that 12th hole there really is unique for its relatively flat to the surrounds concept, yet with significant internal contouring within the green.  

I would consider it a sign of excellent golf course design for an architect to have atleast one or two holes that are low or ground level profile, 'IF' it can be done with proper drainage and within an overall strategy from tee to green and using internal green contouring to vary approach decisions.  

[John Foley]

I think Dye did an excellent job w/ what you call "subtle" elevated greens @ Kiawaha. The 2nd, 3rd and 14th while definetly above the ground are not as dramatic as they could have been and still offer the run up option to all of them. If you look at the rest of his work, I'm not sure he incorporated that into many of his designs.

I also like Dick's comments on the "low to the ground" green concept. Smyers' 18th @ is a Royce Brook West is a great subtle green which looks painfully flat, but has some subtle , confounding contours.

[ed_getka]

Patrick,
 Are you referring to internal elevation changes of the green? I found the greens at NGLA to be fascinating and wondered why we don't see more greens like this today. I had the same thoughts when I saw some Maxwell greens at Denver CC and the cool Ross greens at Brookside in OH.
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ed Getka,

I was refering to the elevation change occuring in front of the green.

For example, the 2nd green.
The second green flows down, off of a knoll, with a fronting trough leading ever so subtlely uphill to the front of the green.

Shots hit 5-10 yards short of the green will get the TEPaul turbo boost onto the green, shots hit into the bottom of the trough will probably bounce onto the green.  Shots hit 2-3 yards short of the green will stop due to the subtle uphill slope fronting the green.

The 12th hole has a similar configuration, but the scale is vastly larger.

Two similar principles, one large and obvious, the other small and almost imperceptable.

The beauty of these elevations, is their effect on approach shots, especially with varying hole locations.

For example, on # 2, with the pin near the very front of the green, a shot his 5-10 yards short, will catapult to the middle or rear of the green, and a shot hit just short, will stay there, just short of the putting surface.

This subtle feature makes the approach shot infinitely more difficult when the pin is in the very front of the green, and can aid an approach shot when the hole location is middle to back.

The same principles apply at # 12, except that the green continues with the pre-green change in elevation.
Approach shots hitting the front of the green often roll back into the bottom of the fronting trough, shots hit at the very bottom of the trough will bounce up, only to roll back, and shots hit 10-20 yards short will roll up onto the green.

These are holes, amongst many others, that you can learn to play with great variety in your approach shot selections, multiplied when the hole locations change.

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, as you describe your concept of elevation into greens further, then I'd say the two Sand Hill courses are great for that sort of trough or noses and knobs pre-green rising up slightly from those troughs.  Also, your description somewhat fits the Biarritz at Yeaman's Hall.  

While you wouldn't know this course, we have one near my home that is bankrupt and its 10th hole is a long par 4 that has a dramatic knob crowning the fairway and centered on the line of play into the green about 30 yards before the putting surface.  It is about 4 ft in elevation on line of play, then about 6 ft deep and 10 yards flattening out in the swale and rising to 4-5 ft up to green surface, with about 2500sqft front tier for pins, and a big hoizontal rise to a 3500-4000sq ft rear terrace of green of well contoured almost double plateau and grass bunkered at higher left side of green and deep apron mowed collection area at other side. It is a really good hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ Daley,

That hole seems to perfectly fit the configurations that I've described.

Understanding the topography/drainage issue, it seems to me, that these fronting configurations are rare today, and I don't understand that.

A simple, inexpensive feature can add tremendously to the challenge and enjoyment derived through playing this type of hole, yet they seem extinct.

Why do you think this feature has fallen out of favor with today's architects ?

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, we are like minded about this feature it seems.  Why it is not used more is a mystery to me too.  In fact, I remember Ron Whitten in his write-up of Wild Horse (which was very complimentary) but made what I believe was an incorrect observation about those little knobs or mounds in the pre-green area, and stated they were over-built.  I took him to task on that, because they were not "built', they exist out there on that terrain naturally, and the Bunkerhill boys made full use of them. They are sort of fairway pre-green poofs like some people describe Maxwells poofs and rolls on greens.  

Perhaps some folks don't like them because they add an element of unpredictability when a ball lands on either side of the hump and gets bounded off line rather than bound straight ahead on the line of play?  But, I have seen them work, and they react just as you say, with balls landing well short pf the green but on the down or backside of the mound getting bounce further up into the green, and sometimes through the green unexpectedly, and those landing in the swale getting just the right amount of bounce up to a front tier, and those hitting the upslope into the green often getting hung up, right there.  The sand, grass bunker and chipping hollow like hazards to either side of the green catch those shots that get somewhat deflected from line of play if the hit the pre-green slope from either side of the crowned mound.  Every course should have at least one such hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ Daley,

NGLA has a similar feature on a flatter scale on hole # 5 as well.

One of the many thing I like about the golf course is the varying elevations to the greens, from the subtle 2nd, to the more obvious 6th, 7th 11th, 13th and 14th, to the grand and bold 8th.  When combined with greens that evovle seemlessly out of the fairways, on holes such as #9, 16, 17 and 18 it makes for a marvelous contrast and great variety.

One would think, that these unusual features at NGLA, the troughs, would be duplicated everywhere.

But, I think that there may be an aversion amongst modern day architects to copying a tried and true feature, lest someone label them "unoriginal"

I think it's one of the simplest, neatest, inexpensive features in golf, that can have a dramatic effect on the play of a hole.