[archie_struthers]

 


One of our recent topics touched on wild greens . It got me thinking about internal contours again.


We had some spirited discussions about internal contours a few years ago. My personal peeve was the over use of micro contours by some of our favorite architects . I'm all for big , broad internal contours . Working over a five foot putt with four different breaks is just silly . Why even float out the greens. Save the money .

[Jon Wiggett]

'''Working over a five foot putt with four different breaks is just silly'

Why Archie?  I agree that maybe so short a putt probably should not break more than one or two ways but on a longer putt of say 30 feet why not require the golfer to properly study the greens surface. Subtle contours require the golfer to look very closely to hole the ball but not so closely to just get it close.

[JESII]

Archie,


Would you consider Hidden Creek a course with a great deal of internal contouring?


Of the courses I've played, HC resonates as extremely high on this type of chart and I think it makes the course. Low profile course on a low profile landscape but every shot is interesting and pretty cool looking. Think of the 5 or 6 iron par 3 (maybe #6?) that's slightly downhill to a green running slightly away from you. About a million holes have been built on similarly featureless terrain but the cool little rolls in the green make it a really good, fun hole.


Is it possible your exaggerating by a break or two when you suggest 4 breaks on a 5 foot putt?

[archie_struthers]

 




Yes I would . Have great respect for  Coore and Crenshaw but the internal micro contours here are overdone IMNSHO.  I've had plenty of short putts there that break three different ways from 5 feet . Not my favorite feature. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Archie,

I am with you, for a variety of reasons.  I wonder if micro contours and frilly edges will be renovated out of existence in the next recession, or in the case of green contours, after the next winter freeze or flood takes them out.  Reasons not to like:

Good players don't like the lack of control, while a few archies love it to raise scores.  Is a putt you can't control the distance of after it leaves your putter a good design?  Colt didn't think so either.

Supers don't like them.  a 6" mound with a gentle 10-15% slope, and a minimum pin placement 5 feet away takes up almost 500 SF of useable green space.  If you need a dozen pins, that certainly increases green size, and thus construction cost and annual maintenance by whatever you spend per square foot.

Managers don't like them, to the degree they cause three putts and pace of play issues.

Even average golfers probably aren't a big fan, at least if they notice the architecture at all.

Aesthetically, they mimic some of the micro rolls at the Old Course, but do those exist in the rolling terrain commonly found in the US, or do long flowing contours (at least conceptually) mimic natural ground better in most cases?

Basically, they appeal to a limited subset of golfers and architecture nerds......For "great courses" they are certainly a nice feature, at least once in a while.  For most courses, they will prove unpractical because construction/re-construction/maintenance budgets are pretty finite, and getting more so.

Just a few practical thoughts from the industry folks who it may affect.

[jeffwarne]

My biggest peeve with excessive internal contours is not putting , but rather approaches that get a SIGNIFICANT different release from an approach within a given 2 yard area.)edit-ok maybe a 5 yard area )
i.e. a shot from 180 yards that hits 179 and goes backward (false front)180-182 is perfect, 183 hits a downslope and is propelled forward hard.
Very difficult to control distance that precisely from that distance for experts, much less average players.-given such a dramatic difference in outcomes.


Older courses tended to have a more general overall slope and/tilt to them or an alternate route to the green for nonaerial play.
Sadly as green speeds have increased we have less gradual slope and more and more tiers to contain the ball, resulting in more boring play and bounces depend upon where they land on the tier, rather than an overall gradual more predictable slope.



Not against variety, but subtle is a form of variety as well

[Brad Tufts]

The only time I've thought hard about this was after a round at Charlotte CC 7-8 years ago right after their Prichard resto/reno was finished.  A spectacular course to be sure, but it was tough to imagine that Ross's design included SO many slopes and sections, often 8 to 10 75-100 square foot sections on some greens.  To compound matters, some of these holes were long par fours, not a sub-350y hole or par 5 that would make a wild green more understandable.

I asked about it at the time, and the response was "Ross always intended CCC to be a championship test, one of his toughest."  Maybe so, but at the expense of playability?

[Tom_Doak]

I've ne played Hidden Creek so I can't say how much Archie is exaggerating. 

I know Jeff Warne is exaggerating and am dying for him to provide examples of holes where carrying it between 180 yards and 182 us the only reasonable solution.  Haven't seen many greens plateaus that are only eight feet from front to back.

Brauer is just an old scold on this topic, like the economists who keep calling for more austerity and sacrifice by citizens or else we will have hyperinflation.

[jeffwarne]

May have been exagerating a bit
actually one of the greatest examples is #11 at NGLA, the double plateau, when the pin is left.(not really a microcontour but a small target where the landing has to be perfect)
a great hole and not a modern one so I'm nothing if not contradictory


Actually, in your greens at Tara Iti I see a lot of player friendly rolls, backstops and banks which reduce the need for distance control(or increase the options for accessing said distance) if one knows where they are.(but maybe that's because I played it 4 times)
5 at Sebonack can be a bit dicey, but hopefully you're not 180 out.
17 at Sebonack may fit my premise distancewise with limited runup options, but no doubt the spots to hit are bigger than 8 feet.


I haven't played many Crenshaw and Coore courses but felt Cuscowilla had many greens where a 5 yard distance control error often led to a 20-30 yard variable in outcome. Less so at friar's head but that may be because I've played it more and know where the releases and bowls are.


In most case. course knowledge is key, which I like.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ah, the good player's lament.

You want to shoot a low number? Make some putts.

Either that, or hit your irons like Johnny Miller did.

That's not me talking, that's Bobby Jones (sort of....) 

(Btw - you don't have to go to famous/classic courses by great architects to find micro contours. Come on out to my 1970 public that's had 45 years of settling and top dressing and bunker-splash and play it at 5:00 pm after a couple of hundred other golfers and with the grain all nice and shaggy...)     

[Joe Bausch]

Yes I would . Have great respect for  Coore and Crenshaw but the internal micro contours here are overdone IMNSHO.  I've had plenty of short putts there that break three different ways from 5 feet . Not my favorite feature.

Photos for those that haven't played or seen HC:

http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/albums/HiddenCreek/

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,

There is a bad old joke relying on the impatience of Americans that comes to mind.....but I agree. You want micro contours, get them the old fashion way, by waiting for them!

Jeff W - You seem to be arguing for and against in your post......micro contours may kick your ball away which is bad, but tier on modern greens (which aren't all that prevalent) are too penal and boring?

Agree on tiered greens, which is why I usually favor long slopes - as to the approach shot, even at flatter grades, players can still use the slope to work to the pin.  Although I will defend the micro contour - if small enough to be called micro, the chances of one of those kicking your ball front or back all the way off the green in also small.  I would consider the false front or a big knob to be something other than a micro contour..........but it does happen, and as PP notes, every time it does, some good player will complain about it.  If it happens to be the greens chair, that feature is probably gone in a week.

[archie_struthers]

 

Just so we are clear . I'm fine with kick plates , false fronts , backstops  etc on greens.  I am speaking particularly of short putts that break three or four different ways . Not ridges or break lines, but micro micro contours .   Tom Doak , shame on you and Sully.  When did I ever overreact or exaggerate lol !

[jeffwarne]

Peter,

There is a bad old joke relying on the impatience of Americans that comes to mind.....but I agree. You want micro contours, get them the old fashion way, by waiting for them!

Jeff W - You seem to be arguing for and against in your post......micro contours may kick your ball away which is bad, but tier on modern greens (which aren't all that prevalent) are too penal and boring?

Agree on tiered greens, which is why I usually favor long slopes - as to the approach shot, even at flatter grades, players can still use the slope to work to the pin.  Although I will defend the micro contour - if small enough to be called micro, the chances of one of those kicking your ball front or back all the way off the green in also small.  I would consider the false front or a big knob to be something other than a micro contour..........but it does happen, and as PP notes, every time it does, some good player will complain about it.  If it happens to be the greens chair, that feature is probably gone in a week.

seems we're all in agreement.
Jeff,
I just lament the loss of overall tilt favoring approach angles, over flatter tiers used because of ever rising speed.
I see more tiers on modern renovations of classic courses-to keep the ball on the green in a pinnable area  on a hole with too much slope for new fast green speeds
I don't mind micro contours, or tiers for that matter-just all part of a balanced, varied design

[Mark Pearce]

I know Jeff Warne is exaggerating and am dying for him to provide examples of holes where carrying it between 180 yards and 182 us the only reasonable solution.  Haven't seen many greens plateaus that are only eight feet from front to back.

I don't think you walked the whole of the course when you visited Northumberland GC and it's a long, long time since you did but the 6th hole there has a continuation of the rig and furrow structure that is a feature of some of the fairways.  There's a rig at the front of the green that can't be more than 4 yards across, so I guess the plateau is less than 3 and it behaves exactly as Jeff suggests.  The smart move, of course, is not to land your approach on the part of the green.  Carry it beyond if the flag is middle or back, pitch short and run up if it's front.  Actually quite a good feature, if there is the ability to run the ball on, so carrying it between 180 and 182 is not the only option.

[Thomas Dai]

Micro-contours on greens? Are we all sure our eyes are good enough to spot them?
Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Micro-contours on greens? Are we all sure our eyes are good enough to spot them?
Atb

They are hard to see....that's what golfers who don't like them don't like...they can't read them, but they affect the putt.....

I looked at some of those CC photo tours posted on this thread.  In general, if I could see the contours in the photo, I figured I couldn't call them micro contours, but would be interested to see what other participants on this thread call them, again, and as usual, just to make sure we aren't all arguing basically the same thing......

[Jaeger Kovich]

I'll take the micro contours on #6 at Crystal Downs, #16 or #14 at Merion any day!

[archie_struthers]

 




Cmon guys , do you really like greens that break multiple ways on ten footers?  How about on five footers ?  I'm not talking about a long twister that runs up a ridge and then back the other way . That's fun ! 


When you have a putt that needs to be hit so hard that it jumps over the break it's pretty silly.  Again , I'm not talking about the break line where you need to hit it in the hole . I'm talking about deliberately mucking up the contours to create dispersion in multiple directions over a short run . Do you really think that's good ?


I find this hard to believe.

[Joe Hancock]

Archie,

I'm not sure I remember very many putts as you describe in over 40 years of playing the game. Do you honestly see it happen so often that it's a problem? If a putt breaks one way, then another in a 10 foot putt, it likely means you're on a relatively flat part of the green. Not only that, it's very difficult to intentionally make that happen when building a green.

[archie_struthers]

 




Joe , we are approximately the same vintage and after almost fifty years watching putts and reading them for others I wasn't used to them either .  However , after having built nineteen greens and working on a few more I can tell you it can and is being done .  Just not a fan of them .




p.s. jäeger and Jon ......I don't think your examples fit , I'm talking shorter putts with multiple breaks. Really not fun

[Jon Wiggett]

Archie,


I am the same as Joe. Having played for over 40 years and played an awful lot of different courses I do not recall playing any putts the broke more then twice from 5 foot and even these are very rare. Not a problem IMO


Jon

[Sean_A]

As with anything in golf...all types of greens are good.  The skill is in creating a balance which isn't predictable.


Ciao

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Micro Contours are not usally the problem in not being able to read breaking putts.


I can usually see the contours, even if they break twice, and I do enjoy trying to negotiate them.


My biggest frustration with not being able to predict which way putts break, is the inconsistency of the grass putting surface.


Recently I've played on Ultra Dwarf Bermuda Greens on a well maintained green and the ball invariably broke from it's line in the last foot. Yes I know it's the grain, but being a North Lander it seems to defy physics.


Then again Poa Greens are notorious in the afternoons for deflecting the ball in all directions.


The bent greens I played recently were so soft the foot prints round the hole affected it.


Worst of all if the hole isn't cut into the green properly and there is a slight volcano round the hole, then trickle balls will move away from the hole.


My best experience recently has been at Leuk in Switzerland which Jon knows well.


The pure Fescue greens at Leuk, which are notorious for their undulations, were tracking beautfully.
After a few putting adjustments it was pure joy to choose a line and watch the ball following perfect geometry and not being pushed around by imperfections.


So Archie is it micro undulations that are killing you or just green surface imperfections?

[Mark Pavy]

 My personal peeve was the over use of micro contours by some of our favorite architects .

Archie, completely agree. Perhaps one of the 'minimalists' could chime in as to the final stages of contouring and shaping the greens, are they dragging steel mesh or just getting it close to smooth and letting nature and topdressing take it's course?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()