[Niall C]

Looking at the Sandwell GC thread one of the comments on a particular green was along the lines that it looked fairly innocuous until you got on it and then you noticed all sorts of subtle borrows. I'm sure like me others will have experienced similar things on other classic courses.

It brought to mind a couple of questions. Assuming the greens are original, haven't been deliberately modified or reworked, do you think;

1 -  the borrows were designed in, or do you think they are largely a result of subsequent ground movement, sanding, bunker splash etc. ?

2 - the borrows there now are as built originally but that perhaps were a result of less exacting green construction than nowadays and probably wouldn't have been in play back then anyway given the green speeds ?

Thoughts ?

Niall

[Thomas Dai]

"Treacherous green, looks pretty flat, almost inconsequential. Should know better when playing a Colt green - "looks inconsequential" usually means nasty, but in a nice way. A mass of small ripples and tiny shelves move across the green from back-left to front-right." was the wording about the par-3 4th hole at Sandwell Park.

Indeed it was only by crouching low to the ground in various spots while attempting to take detailed close-up photos of the delicate nature of the contours and trying hard to see variances in the way the light flickered at particular spots that I was able to see what was going on. I should say this was after 3-putting from about 15ft so maybe I should have done my photographical survey before putting!

I frequently find that even when taking my time and carefully picking the line for a putt or short approach shot it is much harder to judge slope on what appears to be a flat green than on one which has multiple obvious slopes and this was the essence of the conversation my playing partner and I were having about the 4th green Sandwell (and later the 6th green on the same course).

Apologies Niall as I don't think I've really answered your comments but at least it's a bit of background to be getting along with.

And for reference purposes here's the photo of the 4th green at Sandwell that accompanied my words -


Isn't there a famous quote somewhere about making small contours by hiring the local village idiot and telling him to make things flat?

atb

[Bradley Anderson]

I know I have come across more than one author from the earliest days of golf about the importance of contouring to avoid holding water on greens. So I would guess that borrows were not designed into putting surfaces but evolved through bunker sand accumulations and settling.

If however the green has a lot of pitch from top to bottom then the borrows are probably designed - the exaggerated grades being necessary to keep the water moving through the low spots.

[Frank Pont]

Photographing doesn't really capture it.

All classic clubs should have their greens scanned, it shows the subtlilities best and also is an insurance in case an outside vandal or a club idiot has a a go at "improving" the green.

[Jon Wiggett]

Niall,

good to see you back posting and hoping your are feeling a little better.

To the subject of subtle movement I would suggest that a lot of this comes from the type of construction that used to be employed. Firstly, much of the earth movement was done with small machinery and by hand. This meant that built up areas were not so uniformly compacted and so subject to random settlement. Secondly, rootzones were also a mixture of sands and soils which led to a similar lack of uniform settlement. Thirdly, the fine finishing of the seedbed was probably done by hand leading to a similar randomness in the fine micro movement.

Something that I find missing in most modern builds is the lack of micro movement. Yes, many have lots of large movement but due to construction techniques it is all far too smooth. The best example I know of this is Kilspindie and its neighbour. Kilspindie is a wonderful example of all the best things about natural movement in the landscape and yet I often wonder if the crew constructing the course nextdoor never looked over the wall  .


Jon

[Sean_A]

atb

I am in your camp.  The big issue with big contours is that after so many plays, they are "read" and the real thrill is about approaching.  The subtle greens are the ones which have lasting interest with the putter, but not as much when approachin g. The greens I find most difficult are sloping ones...the speed of these seems to be effected more by cutting and weather...and there is nothing to read per se, its just experience one must count on. 

I don't think the classic guys did greens with contour or slope by accident.

Ciao 

[Neil_Crafter]

Thomas, that was a Mackenzie quote

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

I think a good portion of the internal contouring on the old classic courses served to move the surface water off the green.

I think you see that in both the general slope of the greens and the nature of the contouring.

[David Harshbarger]

Slope is more common as the main green defense in classic courses, without a doubt. 

The Ross courses that I have played combine both slope and contour on many greens making them richer, particularly when the greens bring features from off the green into the green itself.

Emmet was a master of slope.  Just played the Edison Club last week and they have many excellent greens where Emmet has built out slope features against the predominant contours that trick the eye into thinking back is front and left is right when they are not.  Huntington CC has the same feature on a few greens.

[Sean_A]

How do folks feel about slopes going against the grade of the land? To me, these types of greens are the hardest to read because they can't be read...one just learns with experience.  I like the idea if its only one, maybe two greens on the course.  Much more than that seems tricked up to me. 

Remember, Ross had lots of contours on many greens, but they generally moved back to front...so there is often a safe play below hole.  Being pin-high, even though it seems counter-intuitive, is often the worst place to be on Ross back to fronters.

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

Sean,

against the slope greens are fine and really as with subtle breaks something you learn to judge with multiple plays. It seems to me that the old adage of having the advantage of local knowledge is not so acceptable today a in days gone by.

Jon

[Patrick_Mucci]

How do folks feel about slopes going against the grade of the land?

That can lead to drainage issues

To me, these types of greens are the hardest to read because they can't be read...one just learns with experience. 

Cane you cite some greens with this configuration ?


 I like the idea if its only one, maybe two greens on the course.  Much more than that seems tricked up to me. 

Remember, Ross had lots of contours on many greens, but they generally moved back to front...so there is often a safe play below hole.  Being pin-high, even though it seems counter-intuitive, is often the worst place to be on Ross back to fronters.

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,
I have done a few greens that slope at least partially towards the mountain.  Usually, they just look weird.  The general trend is to drain the natural way.  As Pat says, it can lead to drainage problems, and you need to add catch basins on the uphill side of the green, which also adds hundreds of feet of pipe around the green.  For whatever effect you might get, I rarely find it worth the extra cost.

Even greens sloping just 1% away from the mountain (i.e., uphill, into any upslope, if no mountains around) can look tilted "uphill." Reading almost any contour (including how much uphill/downhill your approach shot is) can be difficult enough in hilly ground.

As to micro contours, obviously I wasn't around to get into the architects heads or see the originals, but have always subscribed to the settlement theory to explain random micro contours.  Most architects built (and wrote that they built) greens to make sure they drained properly in preferably 2-3 directions.  I also recall a quote about Tillies's greens to the effect that "You can tell a Tillie green because it drains!"

I don't really think they thought as deeply about greens contours as some here think.  Especially since it was hard for them to actually see most of them built, and in many cases, they were built by relatively amateur constructors, fulfilling the saying about using inexperienced or drunk shapers.....

[Tom_Doak]

I don't really think they thought as deeply about greens contours as some here think.  Especially since it was hard for them to actually see most of them built, and in many cases, they were built by relatively amateur constructors, fulfilling the saying about using inexperienced or drunk shapers.....

Indeed, what many here are crediting to the architects and Jeff credits to "shapers" is really what we call "finish work".  In the old days, it would have been quite rare for the architect himself to be around at that stage of construction, just prior to the greens being seeded.  The work was usually done by hand by the construction crew, and whether there is more or less "micro-contouring" is the provenance of the construction foreman. 

Generally, the surface drainage of the green would have been specified and/or supervised by the architect during the shaping phase, and these micro-contours were not supposed to override the surface drainage ... i.e. the slope might be a steady 3% or go from 4% to 2% to 3% to 1%, but it didn't go to negative 1%, or there would be a puddle in the green, except on the sandiest of sites where small bird-baths are sometimes possible.  But I do think this unevenness was a part of the construction and not a result of subsequent "settling".  I know my own greens contours have changed over the years from topdressing [and from the wind "topdressing" greens out of bunkers], but I can only think of one instance where part of a green has settled.  It just isn't that common.

Today's architects have somewhat different preferences.  A few [like Bill Coore] float out every green themselves, so any micro-contours are their doing, but in general I don't think Bill is trying to add contour when he floats his greens.  [I've never asked him about that; I really should.]  Many other architects rely on contractors, who generally try to make a 2.5% slope a perfect 2.5% from one end to the other, in order to display their precision.  I actually leave a lot of my finish work to my associates, so it will differ some from course to course, but we are aiming for something in-between lots of micro-contour and none at all.  I'm guessing that's about how Donald Ross did it, too.

P.S. to Jeff:  Have you ever read any famous dead architect's instructions to make their greens drain in 2-3 directions?  Many did, of course, but a lot of their greens also drained in one direction.  I thought the "three directions" was more of a modern concept, and can't think where I have seen it in any of the old books.  I do agree with you about greens draining toward the mountain, though ... on the outside edge of the green that would be fine, but on the inside edge there would need to be an obvious swale for the green to drain into.

[Ben Sims]

Tom,

How often are you hoping for the finish shaping and float of the green to "fix" a potential issue with the green site or it's location? Forgetting the soil structure at Dismal Red for a moment, I'll use two greens there as an example. Obviously the shape and location of #13 dictates good drainage. The finish and float of that green would never dictate playability or drainage issues. But maybe the finish shape and float of #16 does, based on its location near the water and at the foot of a larger slope?

[Sean_A]

Beau Desert has a few greens going against the lay of the land.  I am not sure they were built this way on purpose as the site is quite hilly and has subsidence issues.  As I say, it takes quite a few plays to go against what your eyes and feet are telling you.  To some degree, its because the greens are so big and the build ups to the rear are substantial.  In general, Beau Desert has weird greens, but I think one of the very best sets in England.  I recall also the 8th at my old club broke toward the hill from the hillside of the green.  It was always funny to watch people putt and watch the ball go the "wrong" way leaving a horrible downhiller for the second.  There was a slight spine running down the green that was very hard to see and read from.  I never could read that green, I just remembered it.  Kington too has an odd hole, the 7th.  It seems to run downhill to the rear, but also downhill to the front when putting from the rear.  I think the green must be on a crest or at the confluence of two slopes. I have walked around it before and can't figure out what is going on.  I also saw (can't recall where it is) a hole which had a pronounced slope toward the hill with a gulley separating the slopes...very odd looking and it was really unreasonable to put the hole on the low side of the green because you couldn't keep the ball on the green.   

Concerning contours, I didn't mean that archies planned every bit and bob, just that when there were contours, I think they generally planned for them...just like for slopes. 

Ciao 

[Peter Pallotta]

A question, which may be a very dumb one: was the 'material' that the shapers were working on back in the old days somehow different than what is being worked on today? Does the 'mixture' and the 'surface' (just before seeding) that modern architects/crews float tend to be coarser or finer or denser or lighter than what Ross' people et al worked on?  To extend the potential dumbness further, I ask because I spent many summers in my high school and university days levelling and then 'floating' concrete sidewalks and basement floors with a wood trowel (leaving the fine finishing work to others) -- and it made a big difference how wet/dry and coarse/fine the poured cement was in terms of the work one had to put in and how one worked, and in terms of the results. (I remember it in one way much 'easier' to work with dry and coarse cement in terms of getting it right and the way you wanted it -- i.e. level, but sloping in the case of sidewalks to make sure the water ran off properly. But in another sense, physically, it was much harder to work into shape, especially in the summer if it was hot and dry and you had to work really hard and fast and keep the trowel moving so as to draw up some of the moisture so that the finishing guys could give it that smooth/sheen-y surface). I know that cement isn't dirt and sand, but just thinking out loud about the possibility that the 'results' on classic courses might have something to do with the material at hand.

Peter      

[Tom_Doak]

A question, which may be a very dumb one: was the 'material' that the shapers were working on back in the old days somehow different than what is being worked on today? Does the 'mixture' and the 'surface' (just before seeding) that modern architects/crews float tend to be coarser or finer or denser or lighter than what Ross' people et al worked on?  To extend the potential dumbness further, I ask because I spent many summers in my high school and university days levelling and then 'floating' concrete sidewalks and basement floors with a wood trowel (leaving the fine finishing work to others) -- and it made a big difference how wet/dry and coarse/fine the poured cement was in terms of the work one had to put in and how one worked, and in terms of the results. (I remember it in one way much 'easier' to work with dry and coarse cement in terms of getting it right and the way you wanted it -- i.e. level, but sloping in the case of sidewalks to make sure the water ran off properly. But in another sense, physically, it was much harder to work into shape, especially in the summer if it was hot and dry and you had to work really hard and fast and keep the trowel moving so as to draw up some of the moisture so that the finishing guys could give it that smooth/sheen-y surface). I know that cement isn't dirt and sand, but just thinking out loud about the possibility that the 'results' on classic courses might have something to do with the material at hand.

Peter      

Peter:

That's actually a very good question.

Most modern greens are built out of a sand greens mix; the two purposes of this are to find something that drains well and does not become compacted by heavy equipment.  Greens on older courses were generally built from more loamy soil which would be somewhat more prone to compaction and settling, and constructing them with horse and scoop might well have resulted in uneven compaction that would settle out later.

However, by the same token, the bigger machines we use today tend to produce smoother contours, and most contractors pride themselves on that result.

[Thomas Dai]

However, by the same token, the bigger machines we use today tend to produce smoother contours, and most contractors pride themselves on that result.

I can understand the contractor pride, but which do golfers prefer - big machine smoothness or yee olde horse and scoop and natural unevenness?

Ballyliffin comes to mind - the newer smooth Glashedy, built with big machines and the uneven Old, built by and large, as a local described it to me " by one man with a mower".

atb

[Jon Wiggett]

However, by the same token, the bigger machines we use today tend to produce smoother contours, and most contractors pride themselves on that result.

I can understand the contractor pride, but which do golfers prefer - big machine smoothness or yee olde horse and scoop and natural unevenness?

Ballyliffin comes to mind - the newer smooth Glashedy, built with big machines and the uneven Old, built by and large, as a local described it to me " by one man with a mower".

atb

Thomas,

if the final fine finish is done by hand (5 blokes with hand rakes) then there will inevitably be lots of micro movement. Which is preferred depends on whether the golfer is looking for interest and challenge in a game or for perfect lies and fairness.

Jon

[Thomas Dai]

I know which I prefer Jon and I suspect I can guess which most GCA posters prefer too

Slight tangent - clay bowl greens. Is that the correct term? Anyway, greens on courses from the classic etc period built with a clay layer below the surface to retain some moisture.

Would the clay layer have been laid across the whole green or just at the low points and would there be a likelihood that the clay layer would shift over time and the layers above alter as well thus changing or enhancing any micro-movements?

atb

[Tom Kelly]

atb

I am in your camp.  The big issue with big contours is that after so many plays, they are "read" and the real thrill is about approaching.  The subtle greens are the ones which have lasting interest with the putter, but not as much when approaching. The greens I find most difficult are sloping ones...the speed of these seems to be effected more by cutting and weather...and there is nothing to read per se, its just experience one must count on. 

I don't think the classic guys did greens with contour or slope by accident.

Ciao 

I completely agree with this and think subtlety is under rated by many. I made a similar comment about the strategy at Gamble Sands, which from the photo tour appears so blatantly obvious that I could see it becoming 'read' as you say after a play or two, though this may just be first impression having not been there myself, it still looks great though.

One of my favourite greens is virtually flat but the surrounding land makes it look quite severely sloped, it has also developed some micro contours within-it supposedly due to subsidence. I have seen a few other greens all built built between 50-70 years ago on the same course change like this as well.

I wouldn't be surprised if many of the classic especially inland courses started out with greens that were intended to be fairly simple, with slopes in one of two directions or a simple tier that due to imperfections of construction techniques and subsequent settlement and subsidence developed more intricate and subtle borrows.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I remember a conversation I had in 1976 with my pro Grant Aitken who also designed a few courses (I was an assistant then) he said that contours were not designed they just evolve on site out of the construction. All his green plans were more about the bunkers and heights of mounds unless they were two level greens. I suspect this was typical of construction up until the second boom in golf (late 80s) from a UK perspective. Quite a lot of older green plans are more spot heights + & -

[Jeff_Brauer]

P.S. to Jeff:  Have you ever read any famous dead architect's instructions to make their greens drain in 2-3 directions?  Many did, of course, but a lot of their greens also drained in one direction.  I thought the "three directions" was more of a modern concept, and can't think where I have seen it in any of the old books.  I do agree with you about greens draining toward the mountain, though ... on the outside edge of the green that would be fine, but on the inside edge there would need to be an obvious swale for the green to drain into.

You may be right.  I will go through my books and sketches when I get home and see if I am imagining that.  I do recall the Tillie green map in the old World Atlas of Golf and it all drained to the front.  Seems like the Ross drainage arrows  went a few different directions on many green plans.  And, I don't think it was truly articulated until later......but maybe!

[Thomas Dai]

I went and re-read parts of Bernard Darwin's 'The Golf Courses of the British Isles' book wherein he says some nice-ish things about Sandwell Park.

Flicking through the pages for a few more chapters and I chanced upon his comment about the greens on the New Course at St-A, namely -

"On the last occasion on which I played there the daisies were growing freely, and daisies, though extremely charming things in themselves, are not pleasant to putt over...."

So much for subtle borrows, drainage aspects and intricate contouring of the greens when you've got daisies to consider as well!

atb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()