News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Praise for the raised greens.
« on: December 01, 2021, 06:48:47 PM »
Raised greens on a parkland course are like wind on a links course. It’s the thing that makes the golf.


  Some aspects I find appealing.


   Blindness for chips on the low side , deep bunkers on the low side which generally allow recovery into the green slope and shallow bunkers on the high side but recovery against the slope,
Missing on the high side creating very difficult recovery, awkward stances, false fronts, difficulty figuring the yardage , slope in the greens are some things found.


I really don’t think that parkland courses without raised greens are in the same class for challenging golf that the ones with raised greens provide.




  Some people complain about many of these challenges on a course. I think they like their wimpy golf!! 


Now I’m not a fan of artificially raised greens so you must have the proper land.







AKA Mayday

Anthony Gray

Re: Praise for the raised greens.
« Reply #1 on: December 01, 2021, 07:44:17 PM »



 Makes for target golf and a few flop shots. A short miss doesn’t have a chance to get on the green. Sometimes they are necessary in wet areas. Size does matter and these greens can make it a difficult round for the average golfer that sucks at chipping. I love the 2nd at Dornach. Looks like a dump truck needed a place to release itself.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Praise for the raised greens.
« Reply #2 on: December 01, 2021, 08:20:55 PM »
I find raised greens limiting.  They are certainly challenging, but it's hard to provide the same sort of variety to greens complexes.


Mr. Dye always tried to leave his greens mostly at grade, and make cuts in front of them or around them, to solve the drainage and set them off.  I've always looked for green sites that I could leave at grade without having drainage issues.  I think that is maybe the biggest thing that sets my work apart -- that I very rarely bring in fill to build a green.

Kyle Harris

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Praise for the raised greens.
« Reply #3 on: December 01, 2021, 08:23:20 PM »
I find raised greens limiting.  They are certainly challenging, but it's hard to provide the same sort of variety to greens complexes.


Mr. Dye always tried to leave his greens mostly at grade, and make cuts in front of them or around them, to solve the drainage and set them off.  I've always looked for green sites that I could leave at grade without having drainage issues.  I think that is maybe the biggest thing that sets my work apart -- that I very rarely bring in fill to build a green.


I’m still formulating my post about the 4th green at Memorial Park.
http://kylewharris.com

Constantly blamed by 8-handicaps for their 7 missed 12-footers each round.

Thank you for changing the font of your posts. It makes them easier to scroll past.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Praise for the raised greens.
« Reply #4 on: December 01, 2021, 08:45:31 PM »
I find raised greens limiting.  They are certainly challenging, but it's hard to provide the same sort of variety to greens complexes.


Mr. Dye always tried to leave his greens mostly at grade, and make cuts in front of them or around them, to solve the drainage and set them off.  I've always looked for green sites that I could leave at grade without having drainage issues.  I think that is maybe the biggest thing that sets my work apart -- that I very rarely bring in fill to build a green.


I’m still formulating my post about the 4th green at Memorial Park.


Ha!  But good catch; the 2nd and 4th and 17th were the only greens I was able to relocate at grade, instead of dealing with the fill pad from the previous renovation of the course.  Oh -- we did move the 12th and 13th, but we were losing fill from the pond on that end of the course.

Peter Pallotta

Re: Praise for the raised greens.
« Reply #5 on: December 01, 2021, 08:50:30 PM »
Mike - I agree. I'm a bit surprised that someone raised it on here, ie the home of excellent golf courses and of the golfers who play them. But out there in the broader world, many a bland course on a former farmer's field has been saved (or at least elevated) for me because of the good raised green -- alas, in my experience rarely 'naturally' produced or looking. The variety and challenge they offer mean a lot when those qualities are otherwise in short supply.

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Praise for the raised greens.
« Reply #6 on: December 01, 2021, 10:10:39 PM »
Possibly I should have said “ naturally elevated”.
AKA Mayday

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Praise for the raised greens.
« Reply #7 on: December 01, 2021, 10:33:13 PM »
Mike,
You mean like those at Winged Foot  :D

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Praise for the raised greens.
« Reply #8 on: December 01, 2021, 11:07:09 PM »
WFW would not be what I mean. Try 4 at Lehigh, 9 and18 at Huntingdon Valley.
AKA Mayday

Peter Pallotta

Re: Praise for the raised greens.
« Reply #9 on: December 01, 2021, 11:14:48 PM »
Possibly I should have said “ naturally elevated”.
You said it well the first time, and I knew what you meant -- and yes, the raised greens that are the result of the site itself and thus 'naturally elevated' are best. I just meant to say that most of mine were clearly with earthmoving machines -- but still provide something good because out of the ordinary (even for a fan of at grade greens like me).

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Praise for the raised greens.
« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2021, 03:41:26 AM »
Raised greens are fine, but they are better when fairly evenly balanced with flat and downhill greens. It doesn't take too many plateaux greens before deja vu sets in. Whereas grade levelish greens can feel, look and play very differently.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Praise for the raised greens.
« Reply #11 on: December 02, 2021, 04:54:18 AM »
Fine in moderation and especially if with sneaky (short grass) humps etc nearby.
As a generalisation too many seem to slope upwards from front to rear. Sloping sideways or at an angle and downwards from front to rear can be good as well.
Variety.
Atb

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Praise for the raised greens.
« Reply #12 on: December 02, 2021, 05:14:20 AM »
Fine in moderation and especially if with sneaky (short grass) humps etc nearby.
As a generalisation too many seem to slope upwards from front to rear. Sloping sideways or at an angle and downwards from front to rear can be good as well.
Variety.
Atb

It's tough to get the grade right so that balls can bounce up the slope to the green, but not easily roll back down or run to the rear. I think green speeds are the culprit. So it's more common for a green lip to be created which will often need to be carried, but will stop a ball from rolling off the green. Of course it means more balls roll to the rear of greens.

Ciao
« Last Edit: December 02, 2021, 10:41:58 AM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Praise for the raised greens.
« Reply #13 on: December 02, 2021, 08:17:25 AM »
Mike,
I trust we both know that greens aren’t built in hollows for a reason, they would become duck ponds after a heavy rain storm  :D  Can you think of any classic architect that didn’t perch their greens, IF they needed to, for drainage purposes.  Many sought out natural high points for that reason as well, the greens would drain as surface drainage was the predominant way to move water.  It was the main reason for green contour as well. A flat green did not move water.  Not much fun playing in puddles or on dead grass.


Some of the greatest perched greens are not all natural. I cited Winged Foot West as one example. Hard to find a better set of greens on the planet.  I just played Pinehurst #2, yet another set of “evolved” but above grade greens. 


Lehigh’s #4 is perched but as you say naturally.  #17 is the same.  Not everyone likes #17 as most balls run off the front to the same general location 20 yards or so off the green. Flynn never intended that to be the case.  He couldn’t have as the grass was not cut at that height back then.


Two of my favorite greens however at Lehigh are #5 which is at grade and #10 which runs away front to back.  Greens don’t get much better then those two.  I love variety.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2021, 12:11:09 PM by Mark_Fine »

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Praise for the raised greens.
« Reply #14 on: December 02, 2021, 09:38:32 AM »
Mark,


Forgot 17 at Lehigh. It’s the most RG green.
AKA Mayday

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Praise for the raised greens.
« Reply #15 on: December 02, 2021, 10:40:32 AM »
I think that many of these criticisms are fair but if you play a course often the naturally raised greens keep you from figuring out the hole. It adds variety to multiple plays.


  I think that the concerns about the front of the green are the most interesting to pursue. Our modern grass heights are the problem. We need solutions that don’t ruin the nature of the rise.
AKA Mayday

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Praise for the raised greens.
« Reply #16 on: December 02, 2021, 10:54:12 AM »
I have told this story before, but I recall searching for places to play around Chicago, when in my teens, and some courses touted "professionally designed with elevated greens!" I took that to mean they weren't a farmer built, moved to little earth, small circle greens kind of course that you could find anywhere.


As Mark alludes, raising greens became more or less standard way before WWII and they made sense, as they relied (and we still do) on surface drainage.  There is little drainage risk if you raise green complexes, and some if you leave them at ground level.  Other benefits include better bunker depth and visibility, as bunkers sunk below grade are hard to see in most cases.  It tends to make the green itself more prominent, as most of us believe it should be, as the ultimate target on the hole.


On a slope of any kind, it's sort of hard to define what is elevated.  If there are ten feet of fall on the natural green site, I always tended to set the middle of the green right in between.  The biggest reason is that it is easiest to balance cut and fill that way, without hauling in additional dirt.  Since the green only needs to slope 2-3 feet on that site, that means the front tends to be 3-4 feet above the original grade, as does the back.  Is that green elevated 3-4 feet (front measure) or on grade (middle measure?)


Yes, there are some flat, floodplain sites that just require you to elevate the green with hauled fill.  I think those are the kind the OP is talking about, and that others object to, but they are sometimes necessary.  And, Wilson and RTJ seemingly (although I bet if you looked at their entire portfolios, it wouldn't be as dramatic as we assume) tended to elevate all greens for reasons above, and difficulty.  By the time I started my biz, everyone was working away from that trend towards CCFAD playability.  It's a pretty simple equation really, the higher the green, the more difficult to hit and recover from around the green.


Earlier in my career, I was really too focused, perhaps, on building greens that cut and fill balanced on site. After redoing Wilson's La Costa, I fell back in like with the idea of the gently running upslope approach, albeit, trying to expand the design hazard vocabulary away from merely sand bunkers.  And, as with everything else golf design related, too much of anything repeated is not great, and what is wrong with an eclectic approach where all greens are different heights above the fw?  Nature usually suggests that anyway.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Praise for the raised greens.
« Reply #17 on: December 02, 2021, 02:22:25 PM »


Can you think of any classic architect that didn’t perch their greens, IF they needed to, for drainage purposes.


Well, that's such a fine point that it is totally unnecessary to say.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Praise for the raised greens.
« Reply #18 on: December 02, 2021, 02:35:52 PM »
Tom,
You said above what separates your work is you don’t often perch greens or bring in fill to build greens.  I was asking if anyone can name a classic architect that did the same - only brought in fill or raised up their greens for drainage purposes.  It is a fair question.