Greens and architectural creativity

[Tommy Williamsen]

     Greens seem to be one of the great places for architects to show their creative side. It's not the only place but greens can showcase the architects talent. Size, shape, undulation, and slope all give the creative mind plenty of options to give the golfer fits. I would think it is difficult to balance creativity with playability. Some greens seem a little over the top while some seem boring, although boring and over the top are in the eye of the beholder. Courses built in the sixties and seventies for the most part had flatter greens than those built in the last twenty years. Personally, I like the trend because it also brings out the creative side of the golfer both on and around the greens.
 

[Peter Pallotta]

Tommy - while there is little doubt that some architects manifest more talent and creativity and craft than others, it strikes me that at nowhere else on a golf course/design is *choice* and *intention* more evident than the greens. In other words, it is on the greens where we most clearly see/identify not so much an architect's *skill* as his *ethos* and belief system. Flattish/bland greens or their opposites both tell us in large part what an architect thinks the game is really all about.
Peter

[Tommy Williamsen]

Peter, I think you can tell a lot about an architect by the greens. For me the fun begins before I ever get on the green. I try to think about how the ball react whether I hit a full shot or am scrambling. Will the green feed the ball toward the pin or repel it? Can I fly it all the way or bump it? Chipping areas, in a sense, are extensions of the green.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tommy - yes, and fwiw I should note that I've come to recognize, appreciate and value those kinds of greens and those kinds of questions and shot options more and more with each passing year. As I've mentioned before, I picked up the game in earnest only in my mid 30s and even then didn't play more than 8-10 rounds of golf a year until I was in my early 40s -- and so I would like to think I'm still on an upward/improving trend.  But what is an enjoyable challenge (on and around the greens) for someone like you can sometimes prove to be a painful challenge for someone like me. I admire architects who add contour and interest and an element of 'randomness' (for lack of a better word) to the greens and surrounds. I think even today it takes courage and conviction to do so -- since not only some low handicap players (who can feel that their 'good' shots aren't always properly rewarded) but also some high handicappers (who on the rare time they hit a green in regulation would prefer a straight forward putt) can take issue with such contouring.  That's what I meant about seeing an architect's main belief system about the spirit of the game in the kind of greens he/she builds; an architect has to really believe in the value of variety and choices and imagination in order to risk the complaints.

[Randy Thompson]

I think even today it takes courage and conviction to do so -- since not only some low handicap players (who can feel that their 'good' shots aren't always properly rewarded) but also some high handicappers (who on the rare time they hit a green in regulation would prefer a straight forward putt) can take issue with such contouring.  That's what I meant about seeing an architect's main belief system about the spirit of the game in the kind of greens he/she builds; an architect has to really believe in the value of variety and choices and imagination in order to risk the complaints.


Peter,
 [font=]Could not agree more. The problem is in many markets they just don`t get it and the senior market is the most difficult. In Sept, our spring, I opened three new redesigned greens and surroundings. I have agreed to make some minor-minor softening changes on two of them. One of those softening is required because I made a mistake, which became evident to me three days ago with the greens now stemping ten. From about twelve yards I could not leave it inside the leather in five tries. Normally, I would give myself ten tries but it was evident there is a roll that needs to be softened. The other minor change in the second green will be more of a political softening and won`t change much at all. I started a post a couple of months ago, something like, can we over contour greens? it was in relation to this green and had a few pictures. The last and third green a par three also, will have notable political changes. We will start after Easter and the greens are big enough where we will be able to keep them open and the only expense will be hand labor since there composed of native sand. I think I could have convinced the board to give them another six months but it’s not worth it even though maybe 20 percent more are now accepting them since there starting to build some thatch and are starting to receive. They need to mature during the fall season to be where I want them to be. Anyways, I am just not comfortable with the political controversy that has erupted and I think I can fix it without sacrificing what I believe to be a strong and memorable par three. I like that currently this particular hole can play relatively easy but with one back tier pin position that turns it into a card wrecker. I would categorize it as a mid-iron green design and there is room to go back with tees to 250, so it should have some longevity defense against technology advances. We had a local pro tournament two weeks ago and they rightfully played it at maximum 185 yards during the four days, The Chilean Golf Federation chose not to use the back pin position because of lack of thatch but the last day put the pin at the bottom of the tier where I told everybody during the construction process, never ever put a pin here. Asi es la vida![/font]
 

[Peter Pallotta]

Randy - thanks very much for that real world experience/example. It is striking how many different things the game of golf "means" to different people. For every person who is certain that undulations and all that comes with them are the very spirit of the game, there is another person who so fundamentally disagrees that in his heart of hearts he thinks the designer made a mistake, and/or is simply no good!
I don't know how you architects do it. I think I'd have long ago lost my temper (and common sense, and decency) and told a number of clients and golfers to F off!   

[Sean_A]

To me, archies have to think of the customer or risk their career. Its not a matter of conviction, but common sense. The greatest artists have made concessions to those who pay the bills...thats life.  So archies have to give a little bit of everything plus a few kitchen sinks when the opportunity arises.  Many folks say there isn't anything worse than 18 flat greens, well 18 roly poly greens isn't nearly ideal either.  to me the best approach is a variety of green styles and that includes a few fairly flatuns'. Of course, so much depends on the full shots as to whether or not the greens are exceptional.  We like to talk of greens as separate entities, but this isn't true.

Ciao 

[Ally Mcintosh]

To me, archies have to think of the customer or risk their career. Its not a matter of conviction, but common sense. The greatest artists have made concessions to those who pay the bills...thats life.

The greatest artists might have but the greatest art hasn't.

[Sean_A]

Disagree Ally. Think about patronage and how it works. Artists have bosses even if it is only the consumer. It would have been interesting to be a fly on the wall in Renaissance Florence.


Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

What about the person laying out the course having the nous to know when to leave a natural greensite well alone or only adjust/enhance it fractionally? Lay of the land and all that? Where would the use of such knowledge/skill/expertise come in this debate?


As an aside, what would be greensites that came about or were improved by incidents during construction, storms, subsidence etc?


Atb

[Randy Thompson]

Shawn
I agree but it's not a customer, its 600 customers! Seniors have a problem with almost any change! Were not going to make everybody happy, so might as well do what we consider correct and reflects our individual spirt! But be open and prepared to modify if we don't have a certain level of satisfaction from our customers! I feel if I have two thirds support and approval i did something correct, less than that means putting on my big boy pants and try some modifications!

[Ally Mcintosh]

Disagree Ally. Think about patronage and how it works. Artists have bosses even if it is only the consumer. It would have been interesting to be a fly on the wall in Renaissance Florence.


Ciao

Sean,


Even Renaissance Florence gave us a lot of mass, production line art to the order of the
Medicis.


Not all of it was great - much of it was paint by numbers by an artist's backroom crew. Or perhaps we are just lucky that the consumer was one family and that their tastes were generally good.


More often than not, commercial success and overall units makes an artist successful. And if the aim is to sell on a mass scale, compromise usually abounds.


The best art is almost always created for the creator himself, no one else.

[Sean_A]

Shawn
I agree but it's not a customer, its 600 customers! Seniors have a problem with almost any change! Were not going to make everybody happy, so might as well do what we consider correct and reflects our individual spirt! But be open and prepared to modify if we don't have a certain level of satisfaction from our customers! I feel if I have two thirds support and approval i did something correct, less than that means putting on my big boy pants and try some modifications!

Thats what I am saying.  Be it 1 or a million, there is still a boss.  And yes, if 67% are on board things are looking bright.  All I was really saying is that bold really stands out when bold is set up by variety.  If there are 18 roly polies, things just get lost in a roll  of much is a muchness...even if the archie disagrees.  Even TOC gives us tame greens...thats for Pietro    And look at West Links with its outrageous Gate green!  Few think it's goofy because there isn't anything else which competes..its a one off which few will begrudge.  If there are 10 crazy greens folks are going to throw yellow flags.  There is a proper place in the game for subtlety...there is no need to bang folks over the head with "creativity"...not that I am saying this is what you were up to.  In truth, I have only across a few courses which I thought the greens, though creative, could have been toned down to greater effect....and one wasn't because of the greens per say, but the how the course was presented.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Shawn
I agree but it's not a customer, its 600 customers! Seniors have a problem with almost any change! Were not going to make everybody happy, so might as well do what we consider correct and reflects our individual spirt! But be open and prepared to modify if we don't have a certain level of satisfaction from our customers! I feel if I have two thirds support and approval i did something correct, less than that means putting on my big boy pants and try some modifications!

Thats what I am saying.  Be it 1 or a million, there is still a boss.  And yes, if 67% are on board things are looking bright.  All I was really saying is that bold really stands out when bold is set up by variety.  If there are 18 roly polies, things just get lost in a roll  of much is a muchness...even if the archie disagrees.  Even TOC gives us tame greens...thats for Pietro    And look at West Links with its outrageous Gate green!  Few think it's goofy because there isn't anything else which competes..its a one off which few will begrudge.  If there are 10 crazy greens folks are going to throw yellow flags.  There is a proper place in the game for subtlety...there is no need to bang folks over the head with "creativity"...not that I am saying this is what you were up to.  In truth, I have only across a few courses which I thought the greens, though creative, could have been toned down to greater effect....and one wasn't because of the greens per say, but the how the course was presented.

Ciao

This I agree with. Creativity doesn't mean throwing the kitchen sink at everything.

[Jeff_Brauer]

More often than not, commercial success and overall units makes an artist successful. And if the aim is to sell on a mass scale, compromise usually abounds.

The best art is almost always created for the creator himself, no one else.

Ally,


Back in college, we always debated what might happen if we were allowed total creativity to pursue "pure design." I.e., we wanted on pesky restrictions the professors tried to impose on the student projects.  Alas, there really is no such thing, and design is different from art, although art is a component of good design.


In the case of greens, in truth, form follows function, and function is the first order of business on the typical green design, although this group likes to imagine every course is on pure sand, reducing costs, for an owner will to spend unlimited funds on ongoing maintenance.  Alas, that is rarely the case, as you well know. 


For others, you should realize that the business and maintenance ends are nearly always more important than the creativity.  We as architect live for that 2% of design that allows us to be out of the box creative, but for only a few is that a reality to have more than that amount of freedome.


Typically, a green needs about 6000 SF to have enough pin spots, which keeps most of it pretty flat.  More contours mean you need a bigger green. If I proposed 7-8000 SF greens, most supers would complain and owners ask why am I demanding they build (at about $6-7 per SF or at least $100K in "unnecessary spending") and then maintain up to 20% more green (at XX? per SF annually) than they really need to?


Yes, that line of thinking goes a long way to explaining the near standardization of features many complain about in modern design, but it is prevalent.


And, as explained, one response for those who want a few creative greens is to make a few smaller and flat, allowing you that extra square footage to make a few larger and rolling.....and I am drawing one of those bigger rolling ones right now, causing me to pause and respond!  I don't like courses that are "small green or large green" courses, but prefer an eclectic one with a variety of size, contours, hazards, etc.  Which is a kind of creativity, I think.

[Randy Thompson]

Jeff,
I always have the cost restriction you refer to and it sucks, knowing you could to more and having to walk away withoout doing it, never is easy! In my current case I didn`t have this retriction because of native fine sand and in the perfect enviromental climatic conditions for bentgrass. Máximum summer time temperaturas of 80 degrees, mimimum winter temperaturas of 35 degrees for a couple of days, and an ocean breeze! While I can defend a lot happening in a médium sized green I am pretty sure that if I had stretched them out another twenty percent I would have obtained my targetted approval goal of 65%. I am not sure if they would have been better but as good, yes! You never stop learning on a well designed golf course, why shouldn`t this also apply to greens? When you encounter a challenging and border line intimidating putt and you make it or leave it close the feeling of accomplishments boils over, isn`t that also part of our job! These are my beleives but I am not going to forcé feed these believes onto a majority that don`t get it or don`t want it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Randy,


In your perfect conditions, I agree its much easier to propose bigger greens.  Its not really mowing, since it will be mowed somewhat no matter what type of turf it is, its water and chemical inputs that raise the maintenance costs the most.  I also agree with your earlier post that a few controversial greens are about the right amount, 2 to maybe 4.....you can break the "rules" sometimes, but at some point, golfers view it as goofy golf rather than a unique hole.


Lastly, as to the general rules of green size, I did see some data suggesting slightly larger greens do promote faster play, i.e., the three putt doesn't take as much time for average golfers as missed chips and bunker shots.  I could see arguing that to an owner to raise the green sizes from the typical 6-6500SF to 6500-7000 SF.  Or, at least 6750, which I have always thought is a nice size green, allowing some freedom of contours and nice target.


I have always wondered if the average golfer gets more pleasure from getting a big breaking putt close to the green any more than just a gently rolling one?  I gather, a few opportunities a round to get some monster reverse breaker to the hole would be enough.  Only question is, if you have 2 such greens with that potential, but he misses one and gets the approach shot close on the other, does he have that opportunity?  I.e., do you need 3-6 really rolling greens for most golfers to get that exhilarating putt opportunity once or twice?  And how many opportunities does it take for him/her to actually get it right and hang one on/near the lip?  (For those who think we should help golfers succeed....maybe on rolling greens a marshal hands you a participation trophy when you miss?)


LOL.  I think a few opportunities per round, regardless of result, is fine.  Its one of the things I like about hockey....the number of opportunities to score, even if only a few succeed.  Its not always about results, although some do cherish their scorecards greatly.......its about fun opportunities.

[Scott Weersing]

I think that greens need to have variety in slope to make the player think. This means that some greens slope back to front, or front to back, or right to left, or left to right. Some have ridges and tiers, some of the greens do not. Some are table top, raised greens, and others are bowls.


The best courses are ones, in my opinion, where the architect used a variety of styles that fit together.


Imagine if every green at Ballyhack was like no. 5 or no. 9 or no. 18. While they are fun and creative, it would be strange to play 18 greens like those. That is why I like Ballyhack because it has a variety of greens, some are subtle, like no. 2 and no. 10. While others have three sections, like no. 4, and no. 17.


The courses I do not like are 18 greens that all slope front to back.