[Jeff_Brauer]

I am against an endless succession of greens with rolls, bumps, and dips. I believe each course or each links should have at least four or five greens, well distributed, that are practically flat after the nature of the ground, with less artificial building up. One gets extremely tired of putting on nothing but molded greens with sudden dips and rises to work out. A few of these, when not overdone, are well enough, but there should be variety. C.B. MACDONALD


I saw this on Geoff S site header and thought it might make a good discussion topic.


With limited success, I will say I have flat, or at least "tilted plain" greens in my hip pocket list of green to include on any course, maybe 1-2, not the 4-5 CBM recommends here, although I can see that many being used:


- Sloped to front left or right corners are good on slightly uphill approach shots, where even the smallest rollover hides much of the green.
- A Redan tipping to a back corner, usually left back
- A pure cross slope green, a la Merion 5 (at least when I played it years ago, may have changed.)
- Small greens can usually drain all one direction without drainage consequences, so a small green can simply tip towards the golfer and drain out the front, especially when used on long par 4 holes where I would generally want the contours a bit simpler as a reward for a hard shot actually hitting the target (i.e., proportional)


In addition to those flat greens, I try to mix up the severity of  cup areas my greens in groups of flattish (below 2% in cup areas), medium (about 2% in cup areas, and sloped (2.25% in cup areas) with the theory being that golfers might never get a true read on those remainder putts near the hole.)


In reality, the slope variations rarely get built exactly enough to work out in theory, although I can't say I've ever played one of my courses enough to really test that theory and no one else has mentioned that they noticed what I was doing.  They probably comment on the 2.25% or greater cup areas, and not nicely, LOL.


Lastly, there are a few more, lightly used, but worth using once per course, green contour ideas, like 2 tiered greens, either front to back or side to side, and even 3 or 4 tier greens.  Not sure if a Biarritz or Valley of Sin green counts as unique, but I have used them for variety.  I have used collector swales on a few greens, and sometimes puffs in the middle of greens as the main feature, although usually when the cup areas are 2%, so obviously there are some overlaps in these categories.  I'm sure there are others I am forgetting at this moment.


But, the main question remains?  Would golfers notice a rotation of greens, a la,


1 - Gently rolling 2%
2 - Tilted plain
3- Gently rolling 2.25%
4- 2 Tier green,
5 - Gently rolling <2%


etc., as this is just an example.


Or would they think the greens needed more of a theme?  And yes, part of CBM's quote was to make them flat to avoid building them up, but in the modern world, with most greens built up anyway, it is more of a design theory aimed at golfers enjoyment, not necessarily following the natural contour as the most important criteria.  That said, of course the point is to pick sites where these contours work, i.e., I wouldn't use a tilted plain right when the cross slope is to the left, LOL.


Discuss.  Yes, another "pure theory" topic many avoid, perhaps because it "just depends" would be the most common answer.  That said, I always believed you should approach a design with an overall concept of what you think works for that course, not just wing it when you get to the field, LOL>

[Paul Rudovsky]

Agree on 1 or 2 flat or flat-ish greens.  Players will then often try to read in breaks that are not there...and being a believer that golf is a mental chess game between architect and player, to me that is more than fair and another arrow in the architect's quiver

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:


As a big believer of winging it when I get on site, I usually avoid these threads . . . especially if there is a Shack quote at the top.  In fact, all "theory" threads strike me as trying to argue against the success of certain courses.  It would carry much more weight with me if you just built a course that followed your plan and it won acclaim, than trying to argue why it should.   




I saw a course last year that looked like it had tried to follow this formula.  Despite being on awesome great ground, it looked obviously restrained, like they were afraid to blow top-100 potential by trying to make it better than that.  Mike Keiser might have approved of that, but I thought it was a sign of lack of confidence.  [Or maybe they thought it was a lock for the top 20.  I didn't ask.]


Have you ever played a course where you applauded the OBVIOUS restraint?  There is a huge difference between that, and not overshaping things.  Sand Hills, for a contrast, has a variety of greens, some more gentle than others, but it is a natural variety, and there was nothing shaped with the goal of being a contrast.




BTW, to your example at the bottom, I don't know that there is a golfer alive who appreciates [visually or play-wise] the difference between a 2% green and a 2.25% green.  We still use 3% as our upper bound for hole locations, because without going to that much, there is just no variety of appearance and playing interest.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,


Not sure why you would attribute bad motives, i.e., arguing against the success of certain courses?  I was thinking no such thing, of course.  And for the record, its not a Shack quote, its Shack quoting CB MacDonald, which is different, of course.


As a fan of form follows function, it seems most gca's over time have written about what their ideal course is, always knowing no individual design, except maybe one on flat ground, is likely to hit the ideal (Flat ground in and of itself would probably DQ the course anyway.)


And, I'm not a fan of waiting to get in the field and winging it, mostly because my Mom would have just called that "procrastination".....


Lastly, you morph the discussion to "over shaping" things, which to me is more a function of green surrounds, not the putting surfaces themselves.  Actually, I applaud many Ross courses for being restrained in bunkering, compared to many modern architects who think 75-100 bunkers is the right amount.


Agree on both the 3%, and the fact that golfers will mostly notice slopes marginally too steep or those that cross the line and make them miss putts.  My point in varying the basic contours subtly is to make them walk off a green wondering why they missed a 3 foot putt, not actually have them notice it, LOL.  I will say that when I played Prairie Dunes in September, what I noticed about green contours were the ones that Press obviously did over Perry.  They had less contour and a slightly different philosophy, and in actuality, while his Dad's greens were better, they did provide a nice break and change of pace in green reading.


That sort of echoed something I have noticed in many architects - the tendency to repeat themselves, which you address apparently by letting site decide, and there is some value in that.  Even with a notion to try a Redan, I wouldn't build one unless the green site was naturally sloping away.  Repetitive design is the gca version of the human tendency to do the same order every morning among Sh*(), Shower, Shave out of habit.  One way to avoid habit in design is to set a goal to be different somehow, in advance, while still following some general philosophy that has worked for you in the past.


My old joke is that you don't want to hear your airline pilot or gca say, "Hold on, I want to try something here!"  Anyway, thanks for the response, although it sounds more like a defense of your method as opposed to any deep thoughts on green contouring.

[JMEvensky]

I always enjoy the threads where architects discuss the inside baseball. I always come away thinking the first rule of golf course architecture should be "the rules are there are no rules".

[Tim Gavrich]

FWIW, I think there's a difference between a green that is "flat" and a green that is, as Macdonald writes, "practically flat after the nature of the ground."


A merely flat green is usually built up on some sort of fill pad and then just ends up bereft of interesting contour. There are a few of these at my home courses (two late-80s/early-90s Ron Garls), and to me they invariably feel like missed opportunities to do...anything else.


What CBM is talking about, I think, is at-grade minimalism, which I've always found different. One modern course that stands out in my experience here is Secession, whose green contours are scaled to the extremely flat and open nature of the site on which the course sits. Context, plus wind, gives those greens an excuse not to be more than what they are, which is sufficient.

[Tom_Doak]

What CBM is talking about, I think, is at-grade minimalism, which I've always found different. One modern course that stands out in my experience here is Secession, whose green contours are scaled to the extremely flat and open nature of the site on which the course sits. Context, plus wind, gives those greens an excuse not to be more than what they are, which is sufficient.

Really?  As far as I can recall Macdonald did not build a single at-grade, minimalist green.  So I doubt he was advocating a couple of them per course.


On the other hand, I will take one as often as I can, but I seem to find less-than-flat spots for a lot of mine!  Still, the random element of starting at grade is a driving force in keeping my greens from getting repetitive, as Jeff noted above.

[Tom_Doak]

As a fan of form follows function, it seems most gca's over time have written about what their ideal course is, always knowing no individual design, except maybe one on flat ground, is likely to hit the ideal (Flat ground in and of itself would probably DQ the course anyway.)

And, I'm not a fan of waiting to get in the field and winging it, mostly because my Mom would have just called that "procrastination".....

Lastly, you morph the discussion to "over shaping" things, which to me is more a function of green surrounds, not the putting surfaces themselves.  Actually, I applaud many Ross courses for being restrained in bunkering, compared to many modern architects who think 75-100 bunkers is the right amount.

Jeff,


I think I have said so before on this board, but the reason I won't put out my idea of an "ideal" course is that I find it limiting.  Pete Dye described to me his ideal course before he had me draw out the first plan for PGA West, but I already knew most of what was coming because he had described exactly the same ideal to Mark Mulvoy for an interview years earlier . . . and you could see strong similarities in his courses on flat ground, because he always had that ideal in the back of his head. 


Pete was unbelievably creative, but I felt the combo of these ideals plus getting a lot of flat sites held back the variety of what he might have built, had he gotten some sites like I have had.


My propensity to "wing it" does come straight from Pete Dye -- that was how he fought back against his own ideals.


As to the difference between greens and green surrounds, I never think of them separately.  When we are building greens I think much more about the recovery shots around the green than the putts.  I figure that unless you get the grades all wrong you'll be able to putt okay, it's the difficulty of the recoveries from one side or another that I am trying to work out.

[Tim Gavrich]

What CBM is talking about, I think, is at-grade minimalism, which I've always found different. One modern course that stands out in my experience here is Secession, whose green contours are scaled to the extremely flat and open nature of the site on which the course sits. Context, plus wind, gives those greens an excuse not to be more than what they are, which is sufficient.

Really?  As far as I can recall Macdonald did not build a single at-grade, minimalist green.  So I doubt he was advocating a couple of them per course.


On the other hand, I will take one as often as I can, but I seem to find less-than-flat spots for a lot of mine!  Still, the random element of starting at grade is a driving force in keeping my greens from getting repetitive, as Jeff noted above.

I think "minimalism" was the wrong word for me to use; I meant something more like "at-grade construction." My fault for imprecision.


Would a Biarritz green where only the rear portion is maintained as putting surface satisfy CBM's quoted recommendation? I believe only the rear portion of the 13th green at Mid Ocean was maintained as green when I played it and I don't recall a whole lot going on there contour-wise; maybe a slight back-to-front tilt? I'm not sure what the original grade was there. That green doesn't strike me as built up so much as the bunkers seem scooped out from it. Maybe that's semantics but that green complex is situated a lot differently than, say, 2 and 8 at Yale. So is the 7th at Mid Ocean; would that be an example of "less artificial building up" from the quote?

[Carl Rogers]

How does a course like Sweeten's Cove fit into this?       no formula?  All hands on deck .... any thing goes?

[Tom_Doak]

How does a course like Sweeten's Cove fit into this?       no formula?  All hands on deck .... any thing goes?

It's hard to say anything about a "formula" for a first-time architect.  You can only tell after they have done a few more courses.

[Don Mahaffey]

Either a set of greens are interesting and fun, or they are not.
You don’t have to build 10 courses to validate the first one. And just because you build 9 with interesting and fun greens, doesn’t mean the 10th will be as good or better. 


I believe both those statements have been validated.

[Peter Pallotta]

I think we’re missing the historical context and architectural ethos here, ie to me, CBM is not so much making a distinction between ‘flattish’ and ‘undulating’ greens as he is between ‘natural/found’ and ‘manufactured’ ones.

The way I read the quote, he’s saying that an architect shouldn’t artificially build-up and manufacture *all* 18 greens, but only 13 or 14 of them — leaving the other 4-5 greens to follow the ground more naturally.

In other words, I think Shack and most posters here are incorrectly ‘reading back’ into CBM our own modern-current approach and value system, and then basing theories on that anachronism.

CBM was neither a minimalist nor a naturalist*; and we make a mistake if we assume, from the perspective of this the 2nd golden age, that one of the original golden agers was honouring (and writing about) all the same things we are.

*of course, please correct me if I’m wrong

[Tom_Doak]

I think we’re missing the historical context and architectural ethos here, ie to me, CBM is not so much making a distinction between ‘flattish’ and ‘undulating’ greens as he is between ‘natural/found’ and ‘manufactured’ ones.

The way I read the quote, he’s saying that an architect shouldn’t artificially build-up and manufacture *all* 18 greens, but only 13 or 14 of them — leaving the other 4-5 greens to follow the ground more naturally.

Yes, when I re-read the quote, I got the same thing you did.


It's weird to me, though, because I can't think of where CBM even built a handful of greens at natural grade.  The National Golf Links certainly doesn't have many:  the 17th green might be one, and possibly the front of the 4th and the 7th and the 9th?  Even where he did leave a green at grade, he cut such deep bunkers around it and steepened up the sides, that it's hard to identify, which seems to me at odds with what the quote was trying to say.




As I said earlier, I think some people have an agenda that only a certain number of greens should be heavily contoured.  They must not like Augusta or Oakmont or Prairie Dunes, then.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - yes, I was tentative in my statement about CBM not being a minimalist because I simply don’t know enough about his work; but from what I’ve read here over the years I certainly couldn’t associate him in my mind with many at-grade greens. I suppose ‘history’ is continually being re-written, sometimes even before it happened (if it ever actually did!)

[Sean_A]

At grade greens for me are an essential aspect of design because by definition they are unique. I couldn't say how many there should be on a course, but archies should look for them when designing. There is often a frustrating subtlety to grade greens because they can be hard to read. It is often very confusing when green entries are grade, but the rear is not.

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

I can see the point about his quote being about at grade greens vs. built up.  And yes, I like the variety of those, too.  But he goes on specifically to mention putting on molded contours, so I think he was also talking about the final contouring of the surface itself. 


On most of my projects, I rarely find a green that can be built just at grade, although I spent most of my career keeping the front as low as possible to facilitate the run ups shots needed by many, if not most, public players.  After remodeling La Costa, I got a renewed appreciation of the 1950's elevated greens, with the approach areas "swooping up" to the putting surface.


In addition to setting a broad goal for putting surface variety, I also used to set one for the elevation above the fw and slope of approach connector, again using the natural ground and a very general rule of longer approach shot greens being set lower to the ground and shorter approach shots being set a bit to very much higher.  Of course, it is always site dependent, and sometimes I might set a wedge approach green at grade just for variety of approach shots.  The ones I was always afraid of accidentally setting would be highly elevated greens on long par 4 approach shots.  Again, that comes from Killian and Nugent building a few because the fit the land, but which were in reality unplayable, which they didn't know because they weren't really golfers, and taking great criticism for it.


TD,


As to your reluctance to set limits, many designers have said some design restrictions are a good thing and can lead to creative solutions, i.e., necessity is the Mother of invention. 


And, funnily enough, some of my philosophy also comes from discussions from Pete, although I didn't have the pleasure of working with him as you did.  One I recall in particular was his formula for how much frontal opening to leave on a green, i.e., 1/3 covered for long shots, 1/2 covered for medium shots, and 2/3 covered for short approach shots.  Another was to use all oval greens (that was more Alice, although we all know they made exceptions) because they hated putting around corners.  I guess our backgrounds and varying personalities govern those takeaways to a degree.


That would be another thing to think about, although impossible to prove anything definitively.  The mentoring process depends on both the thoughts of the teacher and the thoughts of the taught.  But, it would be interesting to contemplate what a Bill Coore took from Pete and Alice that reflects in their work, vs the key points you took.   We have the gca family trees pretty well established, but not the family tree design principles.  Sounds like a project for a college grad student with an affinity for gca.


But, as per gca.com usual, this topic has experience more drift that a bird flying in hurricane.

[Tom_Doak]

TD,


As to your reluctance to set limits, many designers have said some design restrictions are a good thing and can lead to creative solutions, i.e., necessity is the Mother of invention. 

And, funnily enough, some of my philosophy also comes from discussions from Pete, although I didn't have the pleasure of working with him as you did.  One I recall in particular was his formula for how much frontal opening to leave on a green, i.e., 1/3 covered for long shots, 1/2 covered for medium shots, and 2/3 covered for short approach shots.  Another was to use all oval greens (that was more Alice, although we all know they made exceptions) because they hated putting around corners.  I guess our backgrounds and varying personalities govern those takeaways to a degree.

That would be another thing to think about, although impossible to prove anything definitively.  The mentoring process depends on both the thoughts of the teacher and the thoughts of the taught.  But, it would be interesting to contemplate what a Bill Coore took from Pete and Alice that reflects in their work, vs the key points you took.   We have the gca family trees pretty well established, but not the family tree design principles.  Sounds like a project for a college grad student with an affinity for gca.

But, as per gca.com usual, this topic has experience more drift that a bird flying in hurricane.

Jeff,


I agree that constraints can lead to more interesting solutions:  but aren't those usually the constraints imposed by the site, rather than constraints you put on yourself?  It's hard to be as creative when you have ruled out many potential solutions because of your own "style".  [I mean, I will do it for a particular project, like setting a quota of not more than 20 bunkers for Memorial Park, or keeping the greens below 6500 square feet at The Loop; I just don't want to have the SAME constraints for the next course, I want them to be tailored to the project.]


I'm wary of building greens with "innie" curves because of Mrs. Dye's hatred of putting around corners, too; in general I agree with her.  [Funny, though, because #9 at Harbour Town received a lot of acclaim.] Where I have built them, we always try to build in a slope where you can swing the ball around the corner, which I borrowed from #7 at Crystal Downs.  [The 4th at Barnbougle and the 7th at Ballyneal, two of my very best holes, have greens which violate the "oval" rule, but both of them sit in a bowl and you can often putt up off the surrounds to get the ball close to the hole when you seem stymied.]


Bill Coore and I have a lot of the same general philosophy, because so much of it is shaped from working for Pete, and also from talking to Ben Crenshaw.  I think the one big difference in our backgrounds is that year I spent overseas after college, which opened my mind that much more to minimalism and naturalism, and holes like nobody builds today.  The bigger differences though are that Bill solves things with fill and I solve them with cut; and Bill [who was and is a much better golfer] sees a draw, where I see a fade.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,


Agree more and more on the innie curves over time, and when proposed, at least dramatic ones, I make allowances to putt around.  It's just one of those complaints you get often enough to make trying something like that less desirable.  I think gca's are like football coaches.  They get more conservative over time, after the experience of the trick plays proving to be successful only a smaller percentage of the time, and get to where we play the percentages.


Yes, it is most often that site constraints dictate creative solutions.  That said, I always recall that we are designing for golfers, and not the native ground itself.  A guy like JN might weigh even heavier towards golfers first and nature second, given his background.


A creative green (maybe like Jim Engh's 15 foot differences in a 2 tier green) can be a great way to use the site, but that isn't enough.  Does it play well for golfers?  It is certainly unique enough, and each tier big enough to hit, but even as I hate tour pros critiquing design with the old, "What if I hit it here?" line, even I would question whether to build one quite like it.  And, I guarantee I would make sure the top deck didn't drain over the front, knowing from experience that it would be very hard to grow in.


Still, and I know you and Pete and Alice both did this, a creative design may or may not be a good one for golf, no matter how high the course aims, and we must account for the game itself if there is any question, at least IMHO.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:  Darn near everyone gets more conservative over time, and I used to hate that when I was younger.  [I remember the sixties:  "Don't trust anyone over 40."]  So I have tried really hard to maintain my radicalism even when other people attempt to paint me as difficult for it.  That's one reason we've always got some younger people on the construction site.

I don't have a problem with the "What if I hit it here?" arguments, as I am usually going through all of those possibilities myself when we are building the holes.  Sometimes, though, the response is "Don't hit it there, you just identified that you shouldn't."  [I learned that one from Mr. Dye, too.  ]

I also agree that you can have features on a golf hole that get beyond a reasonable golf shot.  A huge tier in a green is a good example, although I prefer Jim Engh's version of those [you are usually at least putting to a bowl when traversing them, so it limits the margin of error] to Mike Strantz's [no slopes to help you if you couldn't judge the rise correctly].  I'm damn sure not building any feature without thinking about the golf shots.

[Mike Hendren]

Not sure why but I’m often inclined to call BS on CB.

Which are the 4 or 5 practically flat greens  at National Golf Links of America?


Mike

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not sure why but I’m often inclined to call BS on CB.

Which are the 4 or 5 practically flat greens  at National Golf Links of America?


Mike

A bit harsh, perhaps.....hey, all gca's are at least 25% BS artists, and the % for the most successful ones is usually even higher!


That said, the discussion above shows that it is nearly impossible to live up to nearly anything you might ever utter or write about principles of gca in your own work.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff:  Darn near everyone gets more conservative over time, and I used to hate that when I was younger.  [I remember the sixties:  "Don't trust anyone over 40."]  So I have tried really hard to maintain my radicalism even when other people attempt to paint me as difficult for it.  That's one reason we've always got some younger people on the construction site.

I don't have a problem with the "What if I hit it here?" arguments, as I am usually going through all of those possibilities myself when we are building the holes.  Sometimes, though, the response is "Don't hit it there, you just identified that you shouldn't."  [I learned that one from Mr. Dye, too.  ]

I also agree that you can have features on a golf hole that get beyond a reasonable golf shot.  A huge tier in a green is a good example, although I prefer Jim Engh's version of those [you are usually at least putting to a bowl when traversing them, so it limits the margin of error] to Mike Strantz's [no slopes to help you if you couldn't judge the rise correctly].  I'm damn sure not building any feature without thinking about the golf shots.

LOL re getting conservative.  Its twue, Its twue.


I remember (I think) David Graham writing somewhere that any two tier green or green with high % of back to front slope ought to have a little ridge on the front to help players from de-greening.  Thought is was crazy when I first heard it, but filed it in my memory, and recognized it when I played JE's course that had it.  Not sure I recall Strantz' big tier greens, but have only played 3 of his.  And, of course, started to believe in the theory, if not for steep greens and moderate two tier greens, certainly when the tier reaches above a foot or two.  One reason is a poster here long ago presented some study that showed a putt rolling off an upper tier rolled at least 14 feet out on the lower tier.  Can't fight Mother Nature nor grandpa physics, I guess. 


In reality, my lower tiers would always be close to at least 50 ft in depth, but I increased that to 64 feet in depth, to keep a pin postion at least 14 feet from the bottom of the tier to counter the good players complaint that "they couldn't get it close from above the hole."  Of course, if I set that "rule" to within 3 feet of the hole, the bottom tiers might only have to be 61 feet deep, LOL.  But, some players believe they should be able to hole a putt from anywhere.  And many good players hate two tier greens because they are not as proportional punishment as gently rolling ones, i.e., a shot might just miss reaching the upper deck and be jettisoned off the green, rather than stay proportionally close to the pin.  I tend to compromise by just limiting the number of such tiered greens. 


Lanny Wadkins once stated to me that 4 tiered greens would be the absolute max there should be on any course.   Funny, sounds a bit like CBM's original quote that started this thread.  I guess the takeaway is that there isn't any concept for green contouring that is so great it ought to be repeated too often across a golf course.  And that probably includes the fallback "gently rolling green."


I recall Jim Colbert telling me the story of the PGA Tour committee going around TPC with Dye to soften some of the greens.  Colbert said he told Pete, "I don't think that mound in the center of the first green is such a bad idea.....the only problem was, you liked it so much you repeated it on the next 17 holes!"

[Tom_Doak]

I remember (I think) David Graham writing somewhere that any two tier green or green with high % of back to front slope ought to have a little ridge on the front to help players from de-greening.  Thought is was crazy when I first heard it, but filed it in my memory, and recognized it when I played JE's course that had it. 

If you look closely at those old MacKenzie green drawings, you will note that a lot of the hole locations are depicted not as terraces but as shallow bowls.  He usually left some contour near the front of a green that you could use to keep the ball from going off the green.  Perry Maxwell usually did not, though.

[Thomas Dai]

Quite a lot of Braids greens on his more rural and rustic courses, the likes of Perranporth and Welshpool for example, often have lips at the sides and rear.
Would these, and maybe the Mack’ green fronts Tom mentions above, be to keep moisture/water on the putting surfaces back in early pre-irrigation times as well as to prevent slow moving balls rolling off the greens?
Atb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()