Green design…

[Jon Sweet]

Having caddied at a number of places, one for 17 years, the other at Augusta. I’ve come to see certain putts under read or missed short or long from the same spots over and over again. These are missed the same way by players of all abilities. I can tell the guy it’s quicker than it looks or slower than it looks. Even then, they can’t bring themselves to do it. You see it on tour events as well, the announcers will say everybody has missed this low. Curious if those that actually design or lay the greens out are cognizant of this and actively try to trick your eye, or if it just happens naturally?
People will call it grain, I see it more as a lay of the land. Would love to hear from some of the architects.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Perhaps I'm just not smart enough to design that kind of thing, but I think a lot of it happens sort of naturally.  About the only thing I consciously do, all other things being equal, is to make sure some greens have a bit more or less slope overall than the "typical" green on the course. I hope (have never actually field verified this) that golfers can't get a read on how greens are breaking that day, as in, "the last putt broke further than I thought, so I'll aim outside a bit more."


Besides grain, a green on hilly ground can sometimes mess with break reads.  I once remodeled a green that didn't drain, and when surveying it, I found it was actually just flat because it was at the base of a mountain, the shaper did it by eye, and thought it was tipping away from the mountain, but it wasn't. 


I actually tried, just that once (wait, I did it once in Colorado, too) to tilt the green to the mountain, and it just looked weird.  Most people know (I think) that retaining walls are actually built slightly back into the slope because if they were built truly vertically, they would look like they were tipping out.


Most golfers know that greens break to the water because it's the easiest most natural way to get water where it wants to go.  But, with digital levels, they find out that it really breaks more than the USGA recommended 2-3%, usually by necessity.  If you are building a green on a 15% cross slope, fitting it in close to level also makes it look like it's tipping back into the hill, and it can be very difficult to fit it in.  Sometimes, raising that cross slope to 4-5% is required, which of course was much easier back in the day of slower greens.


I mean, physics is physics.  A ball will break downhill, more with greater green speed and sharper slopes, and less when hit at more velocity.  For some reason, putts that trickle away from you seem to break more than others (i.e., break to the right, especially downhill for the right handed golfer, vs a break to the left).  The reason some putts appear to break further than golfers think has to lie in the outside environment.  If a gca really wanted to mess with perception, he might specify that all trees near a green be planted something othe than vertical, all leaning the same direction, LOL.


Of course, this includes the well known tendency of golfers to under read breaks anyway.


I will be interested to hear what other gca's have to say.

[Brad Lawrence]

There is an on ramp in North Carolina were you would swear you were driving down a hill.  Put the car in neutral and you’ll start rolling backwards or “uphill”. Locals will tell you it is ghosts but the overall topography is tricking your senses.


A golfer can be just as easily deceived. It’s impossible to ignore the overall scope of the surrounding land. We sense things in our feet. Experience tells us a green slopes from back to front. 


It is an interesting question, do architects understand this and try to trick us?  Would they want to trick us? Do they want us smiling at dropped putts or scratching our heads in confusion, or a little bit of both?

[JC Urbina]

Jon,


When greens are perched up in the air its much easier to disguise the slopes as it relates to surrounding topography,  When green are built on the ground the slopes around them usually give clues to slope and direction. 


The greens that have small mounding around them like the designs of  Hunter and Mackenzie at the  Valley Club of Montecito can manipulate the way you look for slopes.


One of my favorite green complexes is the 16th at San Francisco Golf Club, when I restored the greens years and years  ago after nematode infestation I realized that the mounds deceived players into thinking the green slopes from back to front.  Only a small portion slopes front  to the fairway the rest of the green slopes to the west and the Ocean. 


Clever work by Tillinghast or whoever built that green.   


I have said this before , Deepdale has one of the hardest greens to read, big slopes on hillsides make it tough to get a true sense of grade, the speed of the greens as you know accents the lay of the land and slope.

[Jeff_Brauer]

There is an on ramp in North Carolina were you would swear you were driving down a hill.  Put the car in neutral and you’ll start rolling backwards or “uphill”. Locals will tell you it is ghosts but the overall topography is tricking your senses.


A golfer can be just as easily deceived. It’s impossible to ignore the overall scope of the surrounding land. We sense things in our feet. Experience tells us a green slopes from back to front. 


It is an interesting question, do architects understand this and try to trick us?  Would they want to trick us? Do they want us smiling at dropped putts or scratching our heads in confusion, or a little bit of both?

Some would, some wouldn't!

[Jon Sweet]

Jon,


When greens are perched up in the air its much easier to disguise the slopes as it relates to surrounding topography,  When green are built on the ground the slopes around them usually give clues to slope and direction. 


The greens that have small mounding around them like the designs of  Hunter and Mackenzie at the  Valley Club of Montecito can manipulate the way you look for slopes.


One of my favorite green complexes is the 16th at San Francisco Golf Club, when I restored the greens years and years  ago after nematode infestation I realized that the mounds deceived players into thinking the green slopes from back to front.  Only a small portion slopes front  to the fairway the rest of the green slopes to the west and the Ocean. 


Clever work by Tillinghast or whoever built that green.   


I have said this before , Deepdale has one of the hardest greens to read, big slopes on hillsides make it tough to get a true sense of grade, the speed of the greens as you know accents the lay of the land and slope.

Truly wonder if they were well aware of what they were doing when they did it or it simply happened. With what I’ve read of McKenzie and his camouflage background or hiding of hazards I’d lean towards purposeful. Fascinating subject for me.

[Thomas Dai]

Subsidence, top dressing etc?
Atb

[Jon Sweet]

Subsidence, top dressing etc?
Atb

Thomas,
I am speaking of instances where you see guys miss the same putt the same way over and over.  There is a putt to the right side of 13 at Augusta, so basically furthest away from tee but on the lower tier of that green.  Saw caddies and members read it to go right to left time and time again and it was either straight or went right a bit.  Nothing you see exactly, simply you have to know it.  If you watch the tournament year in and year out, they misread it as well. 
I always wondered if architects were specifically aware of this or purposefully tried to trick your eye or fool with how you perceive the green.
Since I have seen the same course over 17 years thousands of times with god knows how many putts from the same place, this topic always was interesting to me.

[JimB]

Jon,


When greens are perched up in the air its much easier to disguise the slopes as it relates to surrounding topography,  When green are built on the ground the slopes around them usually give clues to slope and direction. 


The greens that have small mounding around them like the designs of  Hunter and Mackenzie at the  Valley Club of Montecito can manipulate the way you look for slopes.


One of my favorite green complexes is the 16th at San Francisco Golf Club, when I restored the greens years and years  ago after nematode infestation I realized that the mounds deceived players into thinking the green slopes from back to front.  Only a small portion slopes front  to the fairway the rest of the green slopes to the west and the Ocean. 


Clever work by Tillinghast or whoever built that green.   


I have said this before , Deepdale has one of the hardest greens to read, big slopes on hillsides make it tough to get a true sense of grade, the speed of the greens as you know accents the lay of the land and slope.

Truly wonder if they were well aware of what they were doing when they did it or it simply happened. With what I’ve read of McKenzie and his camouflage background or hiding of hazards I’d lean towards purposeful. Fascinating subject for me.

As a member of a MacKenzie/Hunter club I have always assumed it was intentional. The question I have always pondered has been; was it MacKenzie or Hunter who was most responsible? Hunter did the build. How much was shown in the drawings? Mackenzie did not spend too much time on site.

[Mike Nuzzo]

I don't think of greens individually
as a small part or a component of the design, I like to have them help set up deception later in the round
the subtlety you are describing won't work every time on everyone, only some portion of the time
peace

[Tom_Doak]

The Japanese architect Shunsuke Kato described in his book how at Taiheiyo Club (Gotemba course) he had made the first 2-3 greens break less than they looked, only to make the next one break more than it looked.  So I guess it has been done.


But he is the only architect ever to write something like that, that I know of.  I think that most of the time we fool you, it's an accident, or at least an accident that we understand, instead of a deliberate thing.


The 16th green at Stonewall (Old) falls away from the line of play, and is slightly crowned in the middle.  When Gil Hanse shaped it for me, and we went to check the grades, it was not doing anything like we thought.  More of it broke to the left than it looked; some of it really didn't pitch to the back at all; etc.  I finally just said, well, it all drains somewhere, doesn't it?  And we left it the way he'd shaped it, knowing that people would be totally fooled.


Also, I will never forget the last time I played Augusta, I left my shot on 16 way short on the very front of the green, to the Sunday pin or something ever farther back left, and the caddie said "you cannot hit this hard enough to get to the hole".  Not what you think you're going to hear at Augusta!  But he was absolutely right, it's uphill more than you think, and it's 100 feet, and you just have to hammer it back there.

[JimB]

People will call it grain, I see it more as a lay of the land.

Yes “people” will. It is a subject I have an interest in. There is a thread in this forum titled “It’s uphill but down grain” quoting caddies at a McKenzie in California. There are some good examples in there.

[Jon Sweet]

The Japanese architect Shunsuke Kato described in his book how at Taiheiyo Club (Gotemba course) he had made the first 2-3 greens break less than they looked, only to make the next one break more than it looked.  So I guess it has been done.


But he is the only architect ever to write something like that, that I know of.  I think that most of the time we fool you, it's an accident, or at least an accident that we understand, instead of a deliberate thing.


The 16th green at Stonewall (Old) falls away from the line of play, and is slightly crowned in the middle.  When Gil Hanse shaped it for me, and we went to check the grades, it was not doing anything like we thought.  More of it broke to the left than it looked; some of it really didn't pitch to the back at all; etc.  I finally just said, well, it all drains somewhere, doesn't it?  And we left it the way he'd shaped it, knowing that people would be totally fooled.


Also, I will never forget the last time I played Augusta, I left my shot on 16 way short on the very front of the green, to the Sunday pin or something ever farther back left, and the caddie said "you cannot hit this hard enough to get to the hole".  Not what you think you're going to hear at Augusta!  But he was absolutely right, it's uphill more than you think, and it's 100 feet, and you just have to hammer it back there.

16 specifically everything there pulls to the front left corner of that green if you’re facing it from the tee. One of the few greens out there that actually does what it looks like. 17 on the other hand will make you look silly.

[Jon Sweet]

People will call it grain, I see it more as a lay of the land.

Yes “people” will. It is a subject I have an interest in. There is a thread in this forum titled “It’s uphill but down grain” quoting caddies at a McKenzie in California. There are some good examples in there.

I heard grain a lot at Augusta when I caddied there even though they encouraged caddies not to say it. That entire property is built on a giant hill so I came to realize anything you see going against the lay of that hill was just less of the hill. I’m no agronomist but as low as they cut those greens I can’t see that grass really laying uphill. Also heard grain at Merion but really found that to be another lay of the land issue. Really need to be aware of the low point of the property there. It’s my understanding grain is much more prevalent in Bermuda greens but I rarely see or putt on them although when I do I tend to see the line well.

[JC Urbina]

Jon,

If you hear  how Press Maxwell shaped in his greens you might say they just lucked out.

When I spent time with Press Maxwell years ago before his passing I asked him,  "Do you survey your greens during construction "   He said No, that they just stood back in the fairway and eyeballed them in.  They made sure they had good surface drainage but other than that not much attention to the actual grades percentage wise. 


I spend a lot of time checking grade and making sure the pin placements that are intended for strategy sake are within my personal guide lines.  I do intentional add a few Maxwell bumps and have even been questioned by supers ( Ken Nice at Pacific Dunes asked if I really needed that last little bump on # 10 green) ??

I always try to make that last little adjustment that makes all the difference in the world. For example the 4th green at Pacific Dunes, three or four slopes to turn  the ball in different directions or the 13th green at Old Mac with feeder slopes in the green making you think it slopes one way but actually goes the other.

Greens are the Face of a portrait as C.B. Macdonald would say.  I think they give the golf course all the characters in the world and you have noticed the little nuances that make it so.

I just played some greens in Colorado attributed to Willie Tucker , the approach angles, slopes, inside contours, etc,  Simply Fabulous!!

[Tom_Doak]

I always try to make that last little adjustment that makes all the difference in the world. For example the 4th green at Pacific Dunes, three or four slopes to turn  the ball in different directions or the 13th green at Old Mac with feeder slopes in the green making you think it slopes one way but actually goes the other.

Thanks, Jim, it’s nice that you are so proud of some of my courses.  It’s a shame you haven’t seen some of the others!  Brian and Brian and Eric also do great finish work.

[Thomas Dai]

What looks level often seems be the hardest to read.
Is there still, was there ever, merit in the old adage about hiring the village idiot and telling him to make it flat or was/is it just a good sound bite?
Atb

[Jon Sweet]

What looks level often seems be the hardest to read.
Is there still, was there ever, merit in the old adage about hiring the village idiot and telling him to make it flat or was/is it just a good sound bite?
Atb

Been on two fairly dramatic properties with relatively flat greens. Odd to think of the surrounds, both in the mountains, and how little break the greens had.