Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Bart Bradley on July 14, 2012, 05:24:14 PM
-
How important is balance in golf course architecture? Have modern architects such as Doak placed too much emphasis on wild green contours?
Just having returned from Royal County Down, I found myself underwhelmed by the internal contours of the putting surfaces. I told myself that the greens there just didn't have the interest and strategy of those that I had seen at Barnbougle Dunes earlier this year. In contrast, however, I could see that County Down asked much more of my tee shots. Would County Down even be playable for someone like me if it had wild greens? It was certainly plenty of challenge even with relatively tame central green contours.
So, have I been brainwashed into over-weighting green contours in evaluating courses? I don't know the answer. I really enjoy well crafted exciting greens. Royal Melbourne blew me away. I loved Barnbougle Dunes. Merion's greens are awesome. I saw none of that stuff at County Down, but it is a great course, no doubt.
So, what do you all say? How important are wild green surfaces? Am I wrong to think greens are more important than tee shots? Is fairway width overrated (is it just a crutch to allow courses with wild green contours to be playable)?
Think twice and type once,
Bart
-
Bart Bradley -
Wouldn't you agree that the contours of the majority of greens on links courses in GB&I tend to be rather modest? Aside from the Old Course, can you cite 3 or 4 links courses in GB&I that have greens with significant contours?
DT
-
David:
From the trip I just completed I can name Lahinch, Ballybunion, Porthcawl.
Certainly Deal and Royal St. Georges have much more contour as well.
Bart
-
Bart Bradley -
Wouldn't you agree that the contours of the majority of greens on links courses in GB&I tend to be rather modest? Aside from the Old Course, can you cite 3 or 4 links courses in GB&I that have greens with significant contours?
DT
David:
There aren't that many, but they are a pretty good group:
Machrihanish
Askernish
Prestwick
North Berwick
Royal Dornoch
Royal St. George's
Lahinch
-
Bart:
I am a bit tired of being typecast as building wild greens all the time. I've certainly built more than most modern architects, but I've got a long way to go to catch MacKenzie or Walter Travis or even Donald Ross.
However, you are right that it is a matter of balance. I tend to put more contour into my greens because I tend to make my courses wider than other courses ... so they need some significant contour in places to defend the hole against golfers who take the wrong line. To my way of thinking, it's a lot better to have someone complaining about the severe contour on the 12th green, than having to count up how many balls he lost on opening day.
Bill Coore's courses are a bit tighter, so his greens are generally a bit less severe. That's why the 5-handicap guys prefer Bandon Trails, and the 10-handicap guys prefer Pacific Dunes or Old Macdonald. But there just happen to be a lot more 10's than 5's.
-
Tom D. -
Do you really think the greens at Royal Dornoch, as group, have notable contours? While the green edges & surrounds have plenty of contour, I have never thought of the greens (aside from #3, #4, #8, #15 & #17) as having a a lot of contour. On the rest of the greens, I frequently have putts of 30' or more that rarely break more than a foot.
The greens on #1 (aside from the small, left-rear pocket), #6, #9 (aside from the false front), #11, #12, #16 & #18 are pretty much dead flat. #2 has back-to-front slope, but no contour. #5 has a couple of modest ripples on the left side, but the rest is pretty flat. What contours there are on #7, #13 & #14 are rather subtle. #10 is a 2-level green, but the change in elevation can't be much more than 10" or 12".
Greens #2, #6, #10 and #16 at Golspie are as contoured as any at Dornoch! ;)
DT
-
There are a few classic links courses with good internal contour... I just saw Machrihanish in May for the first time and the set there were instantly amongst my favourite anywhere... You could possibly add Portrush to Tom's list too...
County Down's greens are tame internally but are a good set because of where they are placed and how the ground moves around them... Think the kick in from the right side at 13 or the fall-off at the back of 7.... I guess soemtimes you don't need everything you like in a golf course to make something great.... Bart - do you think RCD would be even better if the greens did move violently?... You seem to think the question of balance means either challenging tee shots or wild greens (and by extension approach shots)... but not both (or neither)... Tom perhaps agrees... I'm not so sure...
Either way, I think greens with movement are just more fun to putt on... But I guess on some courses, just reaching the green is ample enough reward...
Is fairway width overrated?... I don't think so... Losing lots of balls is not fun and you can still create challenge and strategy with wide fairways and flattish greens by close bunkering, shoulders and mounds on the green perimeters...
A little bit stream of consciousness that post I'm afraid...
-
How important is balance in golf course architecture?
Very. As has been alluded to, too much is not good. I've never played RCD, but from photos it looks like a killer tee to green. If that is the case and it had wildly contoured greens, it might be unplayable/too much.
As you touched on, some of Tom Doak's courses have wild greens. If at Ballyneal, you pinch the fairways, water and fertilze that natural rough, then that course would be too much. However, with the generous fairways and playable long grass...it has perfect balance and it off the charts fun to play.
In my opinion, balance is a major key.
On your question regarding if you place too much emphasis and interesting greens...don't worry about it. It seems like you've found an aspect of golf courses you enjoy. Why fight that? Go with it, seek those courses out, enjoy. That is my take.
-
I used to be of the opinion that its damn hard to be OTT with green contours, but The Castle Course enlightened me. I tend to lean toward liking more subtle greens, but importantly a full set with all sorts of green sites including one or two wild ones and one or two very unforgiving ones.
I don't think I have played another set in the GB&I as wild as the Castle Course (in truth its the combo of run-offs with the contours which is a bit tiresome), but I can say Sandwich gets it about right for contours, same for TOC. There are all the usual suspects, but I have to wonder about the mention of Dornoch. Excellent greens sites, the greens themselves are
not terribly special. The course which I think gets badly overlooked for its greens is Pennard. Its all there without ever being OTT.
Ciao
-
How important is balance in golf course architecture? Have modern architects such as Doak placed too much emphasis on wild green contours?
Just having returned from Royal County Down, I found myself underwhelmed by the internal contours of the putting surfaces. I told myself that the greens there just didn't have the interest and strategy of those that I had seen at Barnbougle Dunes earlier this year. In contrast, however, I could see that County Down asked much more of my tee shots. Would County Down even be playable for someone like me if it had wild greens? It was certainly plenty of challenge even with relatively tame central green contours.
So, have I been brainwashed into over-weighting green contours in evaluating courses? I don't know the answer. I really enjoy well crafted exciting greens. Royal Melbourne blew me away. I loved Barnbougle Dunes. Merion's greens are awesome. I saw none of that stuff at County Down, but it is a great course, no doubt.
So, what do you all say? How important are wild green surfaces? Am I wrong to think greens are more important than tee shots? Is fairway width overrated (is it just a crutch to allow courses with wild green contours to be playable)?
Think twice and type once,
Bart
Bart,
I would argue that RCD would be a better course than the great course it already is with more width and that the driving be tested more often by contoured greens that were best approached from preferred angles, rather than the obvious penalties of deep rough and gorse
-
Tom D. -
Do you really think the greens at Royal Dornoch, as group, have notable contours? While the green edges & surrounds have plenty of contour, I have never thought of the greens (aside from #3, #4, #8, #15 & #17) as having a a lot of contour. On the rest of the greens, I frequently have putts of 30' or more that rarely break more than a foot.
The greens on #1 (aside from the small, left-rear pocket), #6, #9 (aside from the false front), #11, #12, #16 & #18 are pretty much dead flat. #2 has back-to-front slope, but no contour. #5 has a couple of modest ripples on the left side, but the rest is pretty flat. What contours there are on #7, #13 & #14 are rather subtle. #10 is a 2-level green, but the change in elevation can't be much more than 10" or 12".
Greens #2, #6, #10 and #16 at Golspie are as contoured as any at Dornoch! ;)
DT
David:
If we are just talking about internal contours, you are correct about Dornoch's greens.
I just tend to think about greens in terms of the shots around them, and in that respect there is a lot more going on at Dornoch than on most other links. Royal County Down is above average in that department, too.
-
Tom D. -
Bart Bradley specifically references "the internal contours of the putting surfaces" in his initial post, so that has been the frame of reference for my comments.
It always helps to compare apples to apples. ;)
DT
-
Bart, I guess you overlooked the 7th green at RCD! It drove the players crazy in the 2007 Walker Cup, with 9-iron shots!
Otherwise those kids made a ton of putts.
-
Bart, I guess you overlooked the 7th green at RCD! It drove the players crazy in the 2007 Walker Cup, with 9-iron shots!
Otherwise those kids made a ton of putts.
Bill:
I didn't overlook it. One green doesn't make a set.
All:
Yes, I am referring to the central green contours themselves. The green complexes at RCD are interesting because of all that happens around the greens. I certainly looked at the surrounds as a critical element of the design. Having said that, I still don't see the same sort of green contours, variety and playing interest at RCD as I do at many of my other favorite courses. (MAYBE that is all for the best given the quality of the driving test at RCD --- but that dilemma is the meat of this thread).
Keep up the good discussion.
Bart
-
Is fairway width overrated (is it just a crutch to allow courses with wild green contours to be playable)?
Here is another question you asked in your opening post. I'd offer this for discussion...if you don't have greens that are amply big to create interesting and varied angles of attack to choose from, then fairway width is irrelevant.
Furthermore, I don't think they are a crutch to make wild greens playable...rather they are the magic that makes wild greens interesting...as you can pick and choose which angle you'd like to attack the greens/pin from.
-
Bart, I think balance is important. I only have played RCD twice but came away thankful that putting wasn't as difficult as finding the fairway and hitting the green in regulation. If putting we're as difficult I would have finished. Ballyhack's greens at RCD would be a bit too much. Nes Par?
-
Is fairway width overrated (is it just a crutch to allow courses with wild green contours to be playable)?
Here is another question you asked in your opening post. I'd offer this for discussion...if you don't have greens that are amply big to create interesting and varied angles of attack to choose from, then fairway width is irrelevant.
Mac: Wrong! See: tenth at Riviera, among many other holes with small greens that make you drive it in the right place.
-
Can you give a few more examples, Tom?
Sure we be fun to have discussion.
-
Why does the alternative to lack of contour have to be wild contour? There is a big world in between. I don't think anyone would advocate Ballyneal greens at RCD. But I would argue that a little more contour at RCD without going over the top would actually be more "in balance" than the current presentation. Adding interest doesn't automatically equate to unplayable.
-
Very interesting, Ed. Wished I'd played RCD to be able to comment directly.
Tom...interesting point on 10 at Riviera. I don't know if this quote from Ran's review fits in with Bart's questions...but there is no doubt it is worth a read. Here is Ran's write up on 10 at Riviera...
Tenth hole, 315/300 yards; The pinnacle of golf course architecture may well be this hole. You don’t have to be a genius like Thomas to figure out what hole was fresh in his mind as he penned these words: ‘By reducing the size of the green, by tilting it up from one side to the other, or back or front, so as to require a placement on the drive for a shot which can be played toward the higher part, by making it narrow and long with the opening opposite the carrying trap, it is easy to insist on a fine shot to make the second one reasonably possible.’ Like the eighteenth at Pebble Beach, the tenth has benefited from advances in technology. Today, the distance makes it so tempting, so beguiling that many more tiger golfers have a go at the green. Indeed, 72% went for the green over four days during the 2008 Nissan Open. Some even gear down to a three wood because the left front edge is ‘only’ 295 yards from the tee. This bewitching option creates great drama. While the hole might be driven and eagle putts holed, the failed tee shot is often very much out of position. Only 4% who attempted to do so reached the green leaving 96% with some sort of a recovery shot. A hole without peer, the tenth’s strategy is crystallized by the angle of the green’s spine relative to the tee and the narrow putting surface which slopes away. Golfers lured into going directly for the flag are almost always thwarted by this devilish combination. The golfer who plays left and well away from the green gains the best angle down the length of the green making its tilt less problematic. Knowledgeable men gasp in the horror at tee shots flared/missed to the right, such is the negative bias that Thomas created from over there. A tip of the hat to George Crump and his twelfth hole at Pine Valley with its runaway green perpendicular to the tee is deserved in helping Thomas formulate this hole of outstanding merit.
-
The relationship between fairway widths and green contours is, of course, an important one. But it leaves out what I call the Variety of Recovery (VOR) Scale. Few of us will ever hit 18 greens in regulation (most probably average half that, at best) and few will ever hit all 14 or so fairways (again, half of that would be good day for most of us) -- and that means that over the course of a round most of us face a heck of a lot of chips and pitches and half wedged 3rd shots into Par 4s. As so fun and challenging green contours add a great deal of interest vis-a-vis the VOR, i.e. these contours play a big part in the architect's approach to ensuring that when we miss a green in regulation -- and we will miss -- we are left with a variety of challenging, interesting and fun recovery options over the course of a round. In other words, whether fairways are wide or narrow, and independently of the ideal line of play, internal contouring is always important, and it is always crucial that it been done well (especially if the architect wants to score high on Peter P's much vaunted VOR Scale :))
Peter
-
Have modern architects such as Doak placed too much emphasis on wild green contours?
So, what do you all say? How important are wild green surfaces? Am I wrong to think greens are more important than tee shots? Is fairway width overrated (is it just a crutch to allow courses with wild green contours to be playable)?
Bart
If you lack a property of interesting contours a'la links, and/or a dependable wind, the easiest way to create a course of interest day-in and day-out, is to create green-sites with interesting contours. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen too often when you look at the mass of work. I think part of it is because architects who submit plans and abandon the site for days or weeks at a time play it safe. The mentality also seems to be that the green is a safe haven, which is contrary to architects like Vernon Macan.
I wonder what some of the old greats would be doing today. Would they ramp it up to the very edge, as a counterweight to the state of the modern game?
I believe an interesting green-site can drive the strategy/interest of the hole all on their own. The hazards just make it more interesting.
Fairway width is perhaps overrated today with the better players and the distances they knock the ball. They really don't care about hitting 2-iron to ensure they're on the better side of the fairway to attack... it's better to simply launch it far (of course, every rule has its odd exception). This is why courses get narrower and narrower. It's become a test of keeping it out of the gutter (rough), instead of being a tactician and thinking your way around the course.
30-years ago I recall reading that US Open fairways were 28-yards wide at their narrowest (correct me if I'm wrong). Today I play courses where the fairways are narrower than many greens! I've paced 18-yard wide fairways and smaller!
Width isn't overrated for the masses though; it allows them to get around the course.
It seems the only way to have width and make the game interesting today (on properties without a dependable wind or interesting topography) is to have interesting green-sites. It keeps the average guy in the game, and prevents the course from being a bore for the better players.
-
I have found that I tend to prefer wild greens to "busy" greens....I think modern greens can often get too busy for my tastes.
I love RCD and some wild greens might work there (7 is pretty wild as is). Busy greens would not.
-
If you lack a property of interesting contours a'la links, and/or a dependable wind, the easiest way to create a course of interest day-in and day-out, is to create green-sites with interesting contours. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen too often when you look at the mass of work. I think part of it is because architects who submit plans and abandon the site for days or weeks at a time play it safe. The mentality also seems to be that the green is a safe haven, which is contrary to architects like Vernon Macan.
I wonder what some of the old greats would be doing today. Would they ramp it up to the very edge, as a counterweight to the state of the modern game?
I believe an interesting green-site can drive the strategy/interest of the hole all on their own. The hazards just make it more interesting.
Fairway width is perhaps overrated today with the better players and the distances they knock the ball. They really don't care about hitting 2-iron to ensure they're on the better side of the fairway to attack... it's better to simply launch it far (of course, every rule has its odd exception). This is why courses get narrower and narrower. It's become a test of keeping it out of the gutter (rough), instead of being a tactician and thinking your way around the course.
30-years ago I recall reading that US Open fairways were 28-yards wide at their narrowest (correct me if I'm wrong). Today I play courses where the fairways are narrower than many greens! I've paced 18-yard wide fairways and smaller!
Width isn't overrated for the masses though; it allows them to get around the course.
It seems the only way to have width and make the game interesting today (on properties without a dependable wind or interesting topography) is to have interesting green-sites. It keeps the average guy in the game, and prevents the course from being a bore for the better players.
Amen, Tony.
I know you know it, but interesting greens are also the most cost-effective way to make a course fun to play.
-
If you lack a property of interesting contours a'la links, and/or a dependable wind, the easiest way to create a course of interest day-in and day-out, is to create green-sites with interesting contours. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen too often when you look at the mass of work. I think part of it is because architects who submit plans and abandon the site for days or weeks at a time play it safe. The mentality also seems to be that the green is a safe haven, which is contrary to architects like Vernon Macan.
I wonder what some of the old greats would be doing today. Would they ramp it up to the very edge, as a counterweight to the state of the modern game?
I believe an interesting green-site can drive the strategy/interest of the hole all on their own. The hazards just make it more interesting.
Fairway width is perhaps overrated today with the better players and the distances they knock the ball. They really don't care about hitting 2-iron to ensure they're on the better side of the fairway to attack... it's better to simply launch it far (of course, every rule has its odd exception). This is why courses get narrower and narrower. It's become a test of keeping it out of the gutter (rough), instead of being a tactician and thinking your way around the course.
30-years ago I recall reading that US Open fairways were 28-yards wide at their narrowest (correct me if I'm wrong). Today I play courses where the fairways are narrower than many greens! I've paced 18-yard wide fairways and smaller!
Width isn't overrated for the masses though; it allows them to get around the course.
It seems the only way to have width and make the game interesting today (on properties without a dependable wind or interesting topography) is to have interesting green-sites. It keeps the average guy in the game, and prevents the course from being a bore for the better players.
Amen, Tony.
I know you know it, but interesting greens are also the most cost-effective way to make a course fun to play.
But we are talking about balance - no? Surely the best courses have a mix of interesting, perplexing, tough and easy greens to go along with the same for tee shots and approaches. While I agree that greens can dictate play, I am not sure I want a steady diet of it. That said, few things thrill me more about design than seeing a cool green which can stand on its own without sand - still - 18 holes of that does make the course 18x better.
Ciao
-
Sean,
Though greens alone could drive the strategy for every hole, this isn't necessary as there are usually some native features to work off of. When not, they can be manufactured; bunkers, ditches, water features, hillocks, etc... So... I agree with what you said.
I did use the term "green -sites", not just greens. You can have a tame green surface and a challenging green-site, and a variety of them is certainly necessary. Each hole should have interest and ideally individuality.
The difficulty of talking about architecture and accomplishing it is the millions of ways you can build holes to create an interesting golf course.
-
It seems we agree that balance is very important in architecture, Bart's original question.
Another question he asked, was is fairway width over-rated? It seems we agree that answer is no. And it seems to be agreed that fairway width enhances green contours by creating great angles of attack.
If I'm on track in regards that we seem to agree on that, what about another question he poses in the opening post...
Am I wrong to think greens are more important than tee shots?
What say you gurus? I think so...but again balance. Tee shots are crucial and when combined with the appropriate fairway width and green contours, you've got something extraspecial.
-
Sean,
Though greens alone could drive the strategy for every hole, this isn't necessary as there are usually some native features to work off of. When not, they can be manufactured; bunkers, ditches, water features, hillocks, etc... So... I agree with what you said.
I did use the term "green -sites", not just greens. You can have a tame green surface and a challenging green-site, and a variety of them is certainly necessary. Each hole should have interest and ideally individuality.
The difficulty of talking about architecture and accomplishing it is the millions of ways you can build holes to create an interesting golf course.
Tony
I think it is better to talk in terms of green sites and contours/slopes (I am a big fan of slopes) because its the entire package of the green and its surrounds which effect the approach and ultimately the drive if we work a hole backwards. I think this is where an archie can be really creative rather than possibly relying on green surfaces too much. That said, I don't ever recall seeing a course which is over-reliant on green surfaces - do you know of any? For that matter, I have never seen a course which was overly wide either. I have seen a few holes which made me scratch my head - in particular the 4th at Bulls Bay. Jeepers that fairway is immense for the second - I can't fathom why.
Ciao
-
I think conventional wisdom does golf course architecture no favor. Perhaps that's why I'm so fond of the ODG's - they designed and built when there was no convention, partidularly with respect to parkland and farmland (a nod to Tom McWod) sites. Too often, pedestrian architecture suffers from the Garanimals effect - designing smaller and shallowe greens for short approaches and larger and deeper greens for long approaches. Imbalance breeds half-par holes and that's a good thing.
Too much of a good thing is a good thing.
- Alan Jackson
Bogey
-
Reading through this thread it seems that so much of it boils down to conditions. Width and angles and strategy is very much a function of how receptive the fairways and greens are. If you can spin the ball sufficiently to hold the green from the "wrong" angle then the strategy is clearly neutered.
This became clear to me last year playing the rather generic Ault-designed Monroe Valley in central PA. I'd been playing there somewhat regularly for a few years and thouhgt it was a decent layout and the greens were generally in nice shape for the money. Last summer as it got real dry and hard the strategy of the course really revealed itself. I found myself becoming very conscious of the angles necessary to get the ball into different spots on the greens. It was more difficult but also more fun as more decisions had to be made and the penalty for being on the wrong side of the fairways had to be dealt with. Once the rains came and it softened up I was back to banging drives with no real concern because a decent shot would hold the greens regardless of angle.
In general, firmer greens necessitate more strategic golf given "any" architecture.
-
Jim,
While I grant firm and fast is tougher all around, is the statement "If you can spin the ball sufficiently to hold the green from the "wrong" angle then the strategy is clearly neutered" really true?
If a green angles right, and has an opening, I figure its an easier shot from the right because you have greater margin for error both short and long. If coming in from the left edge, you probably have to take enough club to carry a bunker, but have distance control and/or hit more spin, to avoid going over the green. The right side probably has more back to front slope to assist you, as well (if typically designed) It takes a really good shot to come over the bunker, stay below the hole, etc.
So, the advantage reduces from perhaps missing the green to hitting it from firm and fast, the advantage to avoid a downhill putt, and get close to the pin still exists, IMHO. And, it might be better. Do we really need a birdie to bogey swing in strategy? Or is more likely birdie to more likely par enough?
-
Jim,
While I grant firm and fast is tougher all around, is the statement "If you can spin the ball sufficiently to hold the green from the "wrong" angle then the strategy is clearly neutered" really true?
I may have overstated my point with the term "neutered". Perhaps a term like "muted" might be better.
If a green angles right, and has an opening, I figure its an easier shot from the right because you have greater margin for error both short and long. If coming in from the left edge, you probably have to take enough club to carry a bunker, but have distance control and/or hit more spin, to avoid going over the green. The right side probably has more back to front slope to assist you, as well (if typically designed) It takes a really good shot to come over the bunker, stay below the hole, etc.
True - but the severity of the green surrounds (depth of bunkers, etc.) and the slope and speed of the green required to create a similar impact as a simple firm surface would clearly add cost.
So, the advantage reduces from perhaps missing the green to hitting it from firm and fast, the advantage to avoid a downhill putt, and get close to the pin still exists, IMHO. And, it might be better. Do we really need a birdie to bogey swing in strategy? Or is more likely birdie to more likely par enough?
Agree that strategy can be impacted by features that require a decision resulting in changes to the expected values of the potential outcomes. If anything, subtley lost strokes are much more fun and interesting than lost strokes due to obvious things like water hazards. I think the point I was making was that the architecture can be more simplified and still be interesting when the turf is on the firm side. This fact becomes very apparent when fairly basic muni-type courses firm up.
-
It seems we agree that balance is very important in architecture, Bart's original question.
Another question he asked, was is fairway width over-rated? It seems we agree that answer is no. And it seems to be agreed that fairway width enhances green contours by creating great angles of attack.
If I'm on track in regards that we seem to agree on that, what about another question he poses in the opening post...
Am I wrong to think greens are more important than tee shots?
What say you gurus? I think so...but again balance. Tee shots are crucial and when combined with the appropriate fairway width and green contours, you've got something extraspecial.
A good green can affect play all the way back to the tee, but a good landing area will rarely make a hole great all by itself. Greens are more important, but they aren't the only thing.