As Lou D or others will tell you, I have never been accused of flat greens, but over time I am coming to the conclusion that those 3 Colt rules (whether he wrote them first or just agreed) are pretty damn good ones, good enough to make breaking them the exception to the rule.
Has anyone proven that a five foot break is harder to actually make than a five inch break?
Is "de-greening" something that has to be standard to make a set of greens great? Isn't that something that is better perhaps once or twice a course as a unique feature?
Isn't Colt right that the function of the green, once reached, is to allow a great putt to go in, and a good one to land dead?
Isn't Colt right that most golfers take no joy in constant 10 foot roll bys?
Isn't JN right that the course architecture really, really, isn't there to hurt a player? And this certainly applies more to the every day course than a tourney course most here are using as examples. At Podunk muni, should the greens be such that one of the world's all time great putters (Crenshaw) would be in fear of de greening?
If someone has mentioned the maintenance concerns, I missed it. Are big contours really worth the environmental stress of extra water on high mounds in the green? The high cost of hand watering, or double fertilizing? I have seen bent in the south facing south, and bermuda facing north (on sand greens) dessicate due to winter winds. It's pretty typical, actually. Is re-grassing these every year worth it to create a circus putt? Is it worth it once? Twice? 18 times?
For that matter, are big contours worth it 18 times, or in a purely design context, are the better as change of pace examples, hopefully located in "just the right spot" for easy maintenance (not on hilltops where they dry, not in deep valleys where there is too little air movement?).
I understand what most are saying, in that all the "standard rules" do eliminate some great looking greens. 2-6% sure look better than 1.5-2%. However, they do have several functions beyond aesthetics. And, is it really good design theory (if form follows function) to design a green because some old guy did it that way, over designing a green that will function well (and hopefully economically efficiently at least for all but the top1% richest courses) into the future?
So, its really not a BW question, as courses, goals, clientele are all across the spectrum.
BTW, one of the best at matching this at high end coruses is Fazio. I noticed years ago that when he had big internal or edge rolls, his pin spots were flatter - even close to 1% or less to compensate. Other greens are gently rolling throughout, at slopes up to 4%, with most 2-3%.
I got to wondering what would be the "ideal" green for the Olympic course? Enough rolls for the Oly, but soft enough for public play later. I surmise big 7500 SF greens, with some rolls, but a lot of flat space in between might be the perfect, dual goals, design solution there, but I won't have a say in it, of course. Of course, on the muni's I design, an "extra" 1000-1500 SF of green for pure, extra roll might not be warranted, given a limited budget. Think about it - at $6SF, that is another $120K in debt to pay off for the priveledge of rolling greens and wild contours. Worth it?
As to whether the "client" is on board, first, wouldn't your true "client" be the end user, no matter who pays the bills? Second, like others, even when a client has said he will keep green speeds in check, at the first club tourney, they go up, then the complaints start. And, the client rep is often the superintendend, not the owner himself. Thus, my experience has been that the client input in the design phase (as TD says, the involved, dream course, look at every detail owners are few and far between, perhaps 1% of the 1% who would be building such courses) really comes from either the management company, or its superintendent, and you can guess which side of the ledger they fall on.
And honestly, as TD admits, I have often wondered how it is that JN greens (and the rest of us) get softened after a few years, but TD, Gil, and a few others who make a career of building wilder greens are lauded as genius! I figure the name architects get their greens to stay as designed for a few more years longer than the rest of us, but if it happened to Mac, Ross, and others, it will eventually happen to the current crop.
Sadly, the designs often have to cater to the everyday, high handicapper, basically the lowest common denominater who complains the most. One architect, a few committed good players, etc. are usually powerless against the onslaught of the masses who prefer things just a little simpler.
So, even in "pure design" its not a BW prop either.