Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: John Challenger on November 30, 2022, 09:16:13 AM
-
I thought the latest Yolk with Doak #37 was one of the most interesting podcasts on golf architecture I have listened to. Andy and Tom were talking about Tom's recent trip to Scotland and they landed on the topic of undulations.
Tom said, "One of the things I've learned from this exercise of studying those holes more carefully...is how flat they are through the line of play... Walking along the golf hole if something comes up more than six feet from a low spot, you can't see where you are going.... They stay in a very narrow band of up and down...they don't block your view and make it blind very often."
Andy: "What struck me is how small and wavy the contours were...
Tom: Those little ripply contours are far better for golf...when you are drawing a grading plan, those things don't show up...The interesting thing about the way Brian Zager looks at: it's all data, there's an elevation every three feet all the way around the whole golf course...it shows all that wrinkle."
It reminded me of Alister MacKenzie's comments about undulations, which he thought of as hazards, and blind shots.
"In constructing natural looking undulations, one should attempt to study the manner in which those among sand dunes are formed...the hollow between the waves are broader than the waves themselves...at St. Andrews..the ground is a continual roll from the first tee to the last green...on these fairways one hardly ever has a level stance or lie...It is this that makes the variety...and variety is everything.
"An approach shot should never be blind, as this prevents an expert player, except by a fluke, from placing his approach so near the hole that he gets down in one putt."
The value of seeing the hole matters to any player of any ability, not just the expert.
-
I enjoyed this podcast too. As to the particular topic, the interest and subtle challenge of having to hit shots from even fractionally uneven or irregular stances and lies shouldn’t be underestimated.
Atb
-
Many years ago I decided to increase fw slopes from the minimum 2% for drainage to 3-4% for a better look and feel, and received many comments from golfers that the slightly uneven lies really made the holes play differently every day as a side benefit, so I agree. I usually held the ridges to under 4.5 feet high, so as to not be discriminatory to shorter golfer's vision, LOL. :D
For all everyone talks about the strategy being about placement, in reality, it seems as if this has a major impact on crafting individual shots, which is also strategy. You might have the same distance to the green as yesterday, but are now hitting it off a left to right vs. downhill lie yesterday, etc.
I never got into the diddle bump philosophy, because supers tend to hate features that cause scalping or missed cuts, so I felt longer broad slopes worked best. There can be some great benefits in shadows, though.
-
John -
I too enjoy the Yolk with Doak podcasts. Andy is very good at steering the conversations.
As for undulations and MacK, The Spirit of St Andrews is in many respects a long argument for both the importance of undulations and why they should be utilized more often and sand bunkers less often. Which sounds a lot like the design philosophy MacK used at ANGC. Simpson made similar arguments about undulations in the 1920s.
TD's comments here and elsewhere about the importance of 'micro features' get at similar ideas.
Bob
-
I enjoyed this podcast too. As to the particular topic, the interest and subtle challenge of having to hit shots from even fractionally uneven or irregular stances and lies shouldn’t be underestimated.
That was the #1 thing I gained from spending time with Brooks Kopeka . . . his perspective that a downhill or sidehill lie in the rough was a way more difficult shot for a good player than being in the average bunker.
-
I agree on contour, it's the best thing going. But I still don't get the antipathy that Mackenzie (and other architects) show for blindness.
-
Calling it an "overlooked feature" is apt, John. The Old Course may well possess the finest micro-undulations of any course, yet how often do we hear of traveling golfers feeling underwhelmed after a first playing of it, even to the point of considering it an overrated site. Short grass undulations, extolled by MacKenzie, Behr, Doak, etc., enact more influence on the ball and yield a greater variety of outcomes than most built features, but their appreciation requires a more exacting level of focus.
Tom's upcoming goal of replicating that scale of undulation at his TBD project in Florida will be an interesting challenge, using (from what I understand) similar technology utilized in the Lido build, but this time incorporating scans of links land movements for bulldozers to recreate.
-
I wonder how much of modern construction and maintenance equipment hinders the creation or preservation of micro undulations across a course? In grading and shaping a course, is it too easy to smooth over those type features, or too time consuming to add them in with any sort of quantity?
It is true that they are greatly overlooked, but when present they do add a significant increase in golfing value to a course.
After playing Panmure and Carnoustie on back to back days I was struck by how much more "smoothed over" Carnoustie felt. Panmure was full of ripples and wrinkes across every fairway that just were no longer present at Carnoustie, and the existence of those micro undulations made for a more enjoyable repeat playing. Even with nearly identical execution off the tee, often no two approach was exactly the same.
-
I think the peanut gallery here overestimates the difficulty of shaping mirco features with dozers or something smaller. Shapers are great at that kind of stuff. I have put flags in the ground, and had them dump a few loads of dirt here, there and everywhere for the dozers to create something, partly smoothed down. I have seen instances when the repeated tractoring of a fw to clear weeds, prep for planting, etc. have softened the final look, but in reality, most of the time, if a tractor with blade can transverse a contour, its a good sign that mowers can and it works out.
I may be wrong, and the history of gca is, as I've said, "just a whole bunch of things that happened" but I feel like JN and other tour pros brought designs where the fw was smooth, as some sort of reward for placing the tee shot there, rather than another challenge that randomly affects all shots, or a hazard that would direct good tee shots to the rough. It fell into the idea that hidden hazards are no good, so if you couldn't see mirco contours from the tee, they were bad design features. Of course, concave fairways became popular for their playability benefits of holding shots in for similar reasons.
And, again just MHO, but reintroducing those is probably a more important innovation of CC and TD than frilly bunker edges and other items that sort of define post 2000's architecture.
-
I think the peanut gallery here overestimates the difficulty of shaping mirco features with dozers or something smaller. Shapers are great at that kind of stuff. I have put flags in the ground, and had them dump a few loads of dirt here, there and everywhere for the dozers to create something, partly smoothed down. I have seen instances when the repeated tractoring of a fw to clear weeds, prep for planting, etc. have softened the final look, but in reality, most of the time, if a tractor with blade can transverse a contour, its a good sign that mowers can and it works out.
I may be wrong, and the history of gca is, as I've said, "just a whole bunch of things that happened" but I feel like JN and other tour pros brought designs where the fw was smooth, as some sort of reward for placing the tee shot there, rather than another challenge that randomly affects all shots, or a hazard that would direct good tee shots to the rough. It fell into the idea that hidden hazards are no good, so if you couldn't see mirco contours from the tee, they were bad design features. Of course, concave fairways became popular for their playability benefits of holding shots in for similar reasons.
And, again just MHO, but reintroducing those is probably a more important innovation of CC and TD than frilly bunker edges and other items that sort of define post 2000's architecture.
Jeff:
Thanks for that last compliment, and I agree, in principle. It was interesting that when Jack Nicklaus brought his associates up to Sebonack to show them what he liked about it, the first thing he showed them was the micro-undulations in the finish work we were doing around the ninth green!
I think you are partly right that the Tour pro, stroke play mentality in modern design was partly responsible for the smoothing of fairways, but it was also a function of designers starting to grade the whole site from wall to wall, and of contractors trying to make it all look perfect lest they be accused of not doing a thorough job. A lot of the things that Bill and Ben and I liked about older courses were their random undulations, and a big part of minimalism was trying to leave those wrinkles in the finished product, instead of having to create them anew.
Unfortunately, as you know, a lot of times the clearing process [even if you're just clearing away marram grass] tears up the little wrinkles, and then it's a lot of painstaking work to put them back. Sometimes I think our finish crews get too carried away with that . . . when I see all these drone pictures of Barnbougle and Tara Iti and other modern courses, I see a lot of little "muffins" where the work was done, instead of the wrinkly undulations of a great links. It was a few of the contours that the GPS produced at Lido that convinced me there might be a better way to make these undulations than putting four interns on sand pros for a summer! [But, interns have to eat, too.]
-
Jeff, the average player that’s interested in these conversations moved beyond frilly bunkers some time ago. Podcasts and websites and books are doing a good job at informing golfers about their courses. But that’s a conversation for another time.
I wanted to join this conversation to 1) agree that the Yolk is pretty solid. I have a hard time believing many would be as open and forthright as Tom is about a number of subjects, and 2) to talk about what I have always seen as a shortcoming of *some* of our modern American links.
In this episode, Tom and Andy casually mentioned—but didn’t discuss—the downside to large undulations. On larger slopes (by larger I mean measured slope, actual size, or both) balls tend to gather into the same spots and not stay on the the undulations themselves. The only thing I can think of that would make Ballyneal a 9 in lieu of a 10 is this phenomenon.
I understand it would look weird to have 6 inch to 2ft micro ripples everywhere with 25ft tall dunes framing the holes. But it’s just an observation.
-
In this episode, Tom and Andy casually mentioned—but didn’t discuss—the downside to large undulations. On larger slopes (by larger I mean measured slope, actual size, or both) balls tend to gather into the same spots and not stay on the the undulations themselves. The only thing I can think of that would make Ballyneal a 9 in lieu of a 10 is this phenomenon.
I understand it would look weird to have 6 inch to 2ft micro ripples everywhere with 25ft tall dunes framing the holes. But it’s just an observation.
Ben:
One of the main differences between Sand Hills and Ballyneal is that Bill and Ben used some of the gentlest land at Sand Hills for their golf holes, and just counted on the blowouts and the backgrounds to make them look spectacular. Ballyneal didn't have much "gentle" land on the original site -- we looked at a couple more holes to the outside of #17 and 18, but they would have committed us to too many dull holes, so we happily moved into the bigger undulations.
You are right that one byproduct of that is more "divot farms" in the fairways. In hindsight, maybe we should have done more shaping in those areas, the majority of which weren't shaped much at all. But, I have noticed the same problem at places like Tobacco Road, so in part, it's just a function of wanting to leave in some sexy undulations.
The cool part about the scale of those undulations at Ballyneal is that they come into play as backstops and sideboards on the approach shots far more than on other links courses.
-
Thanks Tom.
I enjoy the podcast quite a bit and am hopeful you can continue spending time with Andy even while you have fifty eleven projects going.
Speaking of keeping sexy contours and the difficulty of incorporating micro undulations, I think I’m about to start a thread talking about some things you said about scale and how it’s overblown…can’t remember which episode.
-
Didn’t some famous architect once say something like “to achieve micro-undulations on putting surfaces hire the village idiot and tell him to make them flat”?
Perhaps to achieve micro-undulations on fairways hire the modern era equivalent village idiot and tell him to make them flat?????????
:)
Atb
-
Didn’t some famous architect once say something like “to achieve micro-undulations on putting surfaces hire the village idiot and tell him to make them flat”?
Perhaps to achieve micro-undulations on fairways hire the modern era equivalent village idiot and tell him to make them flat? ??? ??? ??
:)
Atb
That doesn't always drain well, unfortunately.
-
We called it "rumple" during the Castle Stuart project in 2006-2007. Mark Parsinen was very focused on having authentic-looking rumple if we were going to create a credible links. He took the point of view that the really good rumple "comes and goes" on his favorite links--it wasn't always wall to wall. Yes, there are some links courses that are majority (or even all) rumple, but there's times where it is more prevalent and other times where things mellow out.
We went on day trips to study and measure the rumple at Nairn, Old Course, Lossiemouth, Dornoch, etc. And Jim Wagner quickly became a maestro at rendering it. I remember him nailing it on his first attempt in the area short right of the 14th green.
Yes, it would be prohibitive to have Jim and the other shapers rumple the entire course. And like Tom says, it would almost require non-humans to not get exhausted from tedium.
I saw Tom quoted in something that he and Blake were thinking of creating those small, micro undulations for the next course at CS. Mark will definitely be smiling about that from above.
-
I think the peanut gallery here overestimates the difficulty of shaping mirco features with dozers or something smaller. Shapers are great at that kind of stuff. I have put flags in the ground, and had them dump a few loads of dirt here, there and everywhere for the dozers to create something, partly smoothed down. I have seen instances when the repeated tractoring of a fw to clear weeds, prep for planting, etc. have softened the final look, but in reality, most of the time, if a tractor with blade can transverse a contour, its a good sign that mowers can and it works out.
I may be wrong, and the history of gca is, as I've said, "just a whole bunch of things that happened" but I feel like JN and other tour pros brought designs where the fw was smooth, as some sort of reward for placing the tee shot there, rather than another challenge that randomly affects all shots, or a hazard that would direct good tee shots to the rough. It fell into the idea that hidden hazards are no good, so if you couldn't see mirco contours from the tee, they were bad design features. Of course, concave fairways became popular for their playability benefits of holding shots in for similar reasons.
And, again just MHO, but reintroducing those is probably a more important innovation of CC and TD than frilly bunker edges and other items that sort of define post 2000's architecture.
Jeff:
Thanks for that last compliment, and I agree, in principle. It was interesting that when Jack Nicklaus brought his associates up to Sebonack to show them what he liked about it, the first thing he showed them was the micro-undulations in the finish work we were doing around the ninth green!
I think you are partly right that the Tour pro, stroke play mentality in modern design was partly responsible for the smoothing of fairways, but it was also a function of designers starting to grade the whole site from wall to wall, and of contractors trying to make it all look perfect lest they be accused of not doing a thorough job. A lot of the things that Bill and Ben and I liked about older courses were their random undulations, and a big part of minimalism was trying to leave those wrinkles in the finished product, instead of having to create them anew.
Unfortunately, as you know, a lot of times the clearing process [even if you're just clearing away marram grass] tears up the little wrinkles, and then it's a lot of painstaking work to put them back. Sometimes I think our finish crews get too carried away with that . . . when I see all these drone pictures of Barnbougle and Tara Iti and other modern courses, I see a lot of little "muffins" where the work was done, instead of the wrinkly undulations of a great links. It was a few of the contours that the GPS produced at Lido that convinced me there might be a better way to make these undulations than putting four interns on sand pros for a summer! [But, interns have to eat, too.]
Tom,
Agree on the contractors and even wall to wall shaping. I was brought up (professionally, my dad never mentioned such a thing....) to leave most fairways at natural grade, unless there was some specific reason to grade them (usually for visibility and/or creating drainage on flat sites.) On rolling ground of any type, I used to feel that grading the fw on more than 3-4 holes usually meant a poor routing.
I recall one hole where there was a nice ridge built up due to an old cattle fence, and I noted all over the plans not to touch it, only to find the contractor felt it would not look good, but also would be out of place if all the other holes didn't look the same for consistency.....I asked which gca book he read that told him all holes should be alike, because I thought they should all be different in some way.
I also agree that man made wrinkles, or bumps, etc. never look as natural as the real thing. One trick I used was to throw coins at the plan and wherever they landed, draw a small bump there. The coin toss seemed to get the natural randomness down as well as anything. The comment about having those guys drive like they were drunk would have probably worked out well for your 4 sand pro guys. I think the real comment was to have the village drunk try to create straight lines, but the quote as written by Thomas Dai works well, too, so there is no need to quibble! ;)
-
I too enjoy the Podcast.
I had a very interesting, entertaining and enlightening conversation with Andy recently while walking Old Barnwell.
Really enjoying this thread.
It reminds me of a conversation I was having with an interested architecture novice the other day.
We were talking about James Braid, Donald Ross and other architects who did a prolific number of courses and I was explaining(as best I could with my limited actual "knowledge") they often/usually didn't do the work, but simply laid out the routing of the course and/or provided a set of plans, and the quality of the course had a lot to do with who actually built it, as well as simple maturity, and that many times the quirk we all love might've come from some who didn't even play golf, and that the stewards-the superintendent and maintenance- had a lot to do with what was now in the ground.
Later in the day, I was wondering when was the last time a course was "laid out" and NOT shaped, but rather the features were routed over and around what was there, even at the expense of creating some marginal holes, or a few a bit too extreme. I understand Sand Hills was pretty much laid out, and even simply "mowed out" in places.
It just seems many modern courses(and many great ones have been built since 1995) can't help themselves with creating one cool feature after another, with no tolerance for a piece of blandish ground, nor any as well for severe ground, resulting in high quality, first world(borderline) homogenization by creating what is expected given their well earned polished resumes, training, and desire to impress bosses peers and future employers..
-
I don't think wrinkled ground is overlooked or some sort of revelation.
I do think much depends on soil conditions, whether carts will be used as primary way to get around, and if too many "experts" with "expert" equipment is used. Wrinkled ground is imperfect. You don't make $1,000 day being imperfect.
I believe it is completely possible to create wrinkled ground without needing to map old courses and use GPS controlled dozer blades to recreate.
-
My favorite wrinkly ground hole
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/q186/tomwilliamsen/Screenshot_2022-11-30_at_10.40.49_PM.jpeg?width=960&height=720&fit=bounds) (https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/q186/tomwilliamsen/Screenshot_2022-11-30_at_10.40.49_PM.jpeg?width=960&height=720&fit=bounds)
-
Jeff W,
No course is ever completely laid out with no shaping but as you state, Sand Hills was apparently very close. Machrihanish Dunes also. Eddie Hackett more or less laid out his courses as well which make them seem quite timeless, the small amount of rudimentary construction work even adding to that older feel.
When you get a great site, there is usually a “right” amount of work to make the best course. That right amount is to do as little as necessary whilst not accepting major compromises. Minimalism basically.
St. Patricks was built perfectly. A fair amount of construction work happened but it was all in the right, necessary places. It shows the skill of Tom and his team. As a counter - and only because he gets close to mentioning it - I always thought the photos of Tara Iti made it look a little over-shaped. I understand that due to the tree clearance the whole site needed re-grading so some shaping was necessary.
-
Love the crumpled eiderdowns.
It's been said before but modern cutting heights work against this. More balls run to the low points, so you don't get the hanging lie, and consequently divots are more and more of a thing. It used to be said that links golf was at its best in winter but if the grass won't grow some spots are becoming very sorry looking by spring, or for the first time we've had to introduce drop zones and mats.
I'd love to see some areas of fairway cut much higher. It would make these areas more fun. Start with Deal's 3 and 15 between approx 100 yards out to 50. At those points the land is more stormy seas than gentle ripple and in the troughs , divots cluster like ships dashed on a reef! (Apologies it's the kids creative writing class today😆)
For this to become a thing it would have to start with TOC. 12 would be good place to start....But I fear will only ever see this as I nestle under my duvet...
-
Love the crumpled eiderdowns.
It's been said before but modern cutting heights work against this. More balls run to the low points, so you don't get the hanging lie, and consequently divots are more and more of a thing. It used to be said that links golf was at its best in winter but if the grass won't grow some spots are becoming very sorry looking by spring, or for the first time we've had to introduce drop zones and mats.
I'd love to see some areas of fairway cut much higher. It would make these areas more fun. Start with Deal's 3 and 15 between approx 100 yards out to 50. At those points the land is more stormy seas than gentle ripple and in the troughs , divots cluster like ships dashed on a reef! (Apologies it's the kids creative writing class today)
For this to become a thing it would have to start with TOC. 12 would be good place to start....But I fear will only ever see this as I nestle under my duvet...
I agree. Fairways are too short these days. One of the few big time links I have seen recently with good heights is Gullane. I don't hear anybody complain that the course isn't keen enough. Why this obsession with super short grass?
Ciao
-
Another aspect is the relative deepness of hollows on wrinkly ground and how steep the sides are.
Played a couple of holes this year where short grass, ball gathering hollows in the centre of a fairway were so deep and steep sided that the only shot out was a short iron. Makes playing the remainder of the hole a bit more challenging when the hole in question is a long par-4 or a par-5 and it’s playing into the wind! Still, challenge can be good.
Atb
-
I don't think wrinkled ground is overlooked or some sort of revelation.
I do think much depends on soil conditions, whether carts will be used as primary way to get around, and if too many "experts" with "expert" equipment is used. Wrinkled ground is imperfect. You don't make $1,000 day being imperfect.
I believe it is completely possible to create wrinkled ground without needing to map old courses and use GPS controlled dozer blades to recreate.
Hey Don:
While I agree with your last point, it’s possible, but there aren’t a lot of successes that jump to mind.
Also, I’m guessing you make more than any shapers I know, so you should probably not cast stones about what anyone is getting paid.
-
In 1933 Alister MacKenenzie said about St. Andrews TOC, "I doubt if even in a hundred years' time a course will be made which has such interesting strategic problems and which creates such enduring and increasing pleasurable excitement and varied shots." We have a decade left to prove him wrong.
Is it possible that this undulating, wrinkled, rumpled, crumpled land is THE key element, especially on inland courses, and that when this essential subtle ingredient is missing, courses can be too flat and dull and uninspiring? MacKenzie said that these undulations on fairways and greens are the key to variety and variety is everything. Maybe in our ham-handed modern machined way, we have been making them, as Tom points out, too big and dramatic and clunky.
If making wrinkled land throughout the entire course is either too boring for a shaper, equally as or even more complicated to get right then shaping a bunker or a green, too expensive, too easily wrecked by maintenance equipment, etc., no wonder we don't see it much except on courses where it's natural or in a sacred places like St. Andrews where it has been left alone.
What if it really were to be much, much more complicated than it looks to get it right? Leaving it to a random throw of marbles is an interesting solution but perhaps the wrong way to recreate natural random links ground made by wind and rain and the elements. Just leaving it to a crewmember works if it's really not too hard to accomplish.
Maybe the answer, at least for the time being until we learn to do it inexpensively, is to use 3d printers and automated vehicles to recreate the folded micropatterns from ideal course land. CBMacdonald would also probably like to know we are still trying to recreate ideal landforms and a "wrinkle in time" 100 years later.
-
St. Patricks was built perfectly. A fair amount of construction work happened but it was all in the right, necessary places. It shows the skill of Tom and his team. As a counter - and only because he gets close to mentioning it - I always thought the photos of Tara Iti made it look a little over-shaped. I understand that due to the tree clearance the whole site needed re-grading so some shaping was necessary.
Ally:
You know a lot more about St Patrick’s than you do about Tara Iti, which was 3x more work to build, because every square inch of it had to be put back together, and every edge considered. Maybe there are some places with too much micro contour for your tastes, but there is a good balance of fairways like the 8th and 9th that have a lot of gentle movement. (I suspect that’s why some people think it’s my best work.)
By the same token, we had a much tighter budget to build St Patrick’s, and it was a conscious decision to do less shaping and leave more things alone (although maybe Eric and I should have reminded Clyde and Angela about that a bit more often). We were properly wary of tearing up too much ground, because the growing season in Ireland is so short that you can’t be sure you’ll be able to get turf established on a lot of open sand. It was a very different process to Tara Iti or Pacific Dunes or Ballyneal.
-
Is it possible that this undulating, wrinkled, rumpled, crumpled land is THE key element, especially on inland courses, that have made them too flat and dull and uninspiring. MacKenzie said that these undulations on fairways and greens are the key to variety and variety is everything. Maybe in our ham-handed modern way, we have been making them, as Tom points out, too big and dramatic and clunky.
. . .
Maybe the answer, at least for the time being until we learn to do it, is to use 3d printers and technology to recreate the folded micropatterns from ideal course land. CBMacdonald would also probably like to know we are trying to recreate ideal landforms and a "wrinkle in time" 100 years later.
An important part of this discussion that’s been skipped is, are there really many places where it’s appropriate to try and create the wrinkly contours of a great links? I’m lucky enough to have worked in a few such locations, but let’s agree that it made more sense for Macdonald to try it next to the ocean on Long Island than it did for us to do recreations of the same shapes in Wisconsin or Thailand!
And as several posters here have teased, it’s equally as easy to overdo the shaping as it is to overdo the design. For example, I think we could copy even those wild contours of the sixth fairway at Westward Ho! that Tommy posted, but most would agree that would be overkill on most any other site. (And a lot of holes at Westward Ho! are actually pretty flat.). But the reason I can’t imagine anyone rebuilding that hole is that architects would not be content to build it without over-strategizing and trying to combine the best elements of the Redan and the Bottle holes. ::)
-
Wouldn’t wrinkles, especially hollows, on non free-draining soil like that usually found on inland parkland courses, as Tom mentioned in response to my tongue in cheek post above, likely be problematical unless decent drainage is installed, which then raises other issues like £$€?
Also, whereas hollows get damp and wet, humps, even minor ones, dry out and look bald of grass and scruffy and unsightly, which then attracts negative comments about course conditioning etc,
Atb
-
I recall a pamphlet from Langrod regarding the Chicago District. I think he actually considered no bunkers because there were no natural sand blowouts in the Chicago area (save the Indiana Dunes in the SE corner). So, I understand the concept of not using rumples as a design feature if they aren't natural to the area. Others have posited that built contours should never exceed twice the natural slopes in an area if you want the course to fit the natural landscape, a good rule of thumb perhaps, if not applied too strictly.
That said, rolling fw like no. 8 at Prarie Dunes seems to come out of nowhere after relatively flat fw on the front nine, so I suppose a gca could surmise that a small area of dunes on an inland site might have existed somewhere, so why not imagine it happens here? Let's face it, many designs are almost totally artificial.
Also, as mentioned, both drainage problems and mowing quality (important to many, i.e., avoiding the scalped spots) can be problems, maybe even more so on clay soils. Not to mention that the more finicky the ripples, the more diverse the lies. While that is great for challenging better players, like any other hazard, it probably kills average golfers much more. So, the type of course might dictate their use.
-
I don't think wrinkled ground is overlooked or some sort of revelation.
I do think much depends on soil conditions, whether carts will be used as primary way to get around, and if too many "experts" with "expert" equipment is used. Wrinkled ground is imperfect. You don't make $1,000 day being imperfect.
I believe it is completely possible to create wrinkled ground without needing to map old courses and use GPS controlled dozer blades to recreate.
Hey Don:
While I agree with your last point, it’s possible, but there aren’t a lot of successes that jump to mind.
Also, I’m guessing you make more than any shapers I know, so you should probably not cast stones about what anyone is getting paid.
Tom,
I wasn't casting stones but I can see why you took it that way. Good shapers, like your guys, and others out there, are worth every penny+. That wasn't my point. My point is wrinkly ground, the kind I've seen on links courses overseas, would often not be acceptable finish work here in the states.
It's not a shaper issue, I believe it to be an "acceptance" issue by golf architects, clients, supts and the golf world in general. And maybe that's because it is difficult and its a lot of hand work or small machine work. I'm trying to perform some now wrinkled ground work now. I guess we'll see how we do when it's played on in a year or so.
-
It's not a shaper issue, I believe it to be an "acceptance" issue by golf architects, clients, supts and the golf world in general.
Indeed.
Tommy W, you might enjoy this: I used google images to find where your photo was from, and got a listing of just about every UK course....except the answer. :)
I love roly poly land (that's what I call it). I don't see it nearly enough in modern courses (well, the few I've played). I think Don't probably correct on why. It frustrates golfers like few other things, and the game is hard enough for most of us that we don't like to be frustrated in such a way. Kinda sad, doesn't speak well of us golfers......
-
Love the crumpled eiderdowns.
It's been said before but modern cutting heights work against this. More balls run to the low points, so you don't get the hanging lie, and consequently divots are more and more of a thing. It used to be said that links golf was at its best in winter but if the grass won't grow some spots are becoming very sorry looking by spring, or for the first time we've had to introduce drop zones and mats.
I'd love to see some areas of fairway cut much higher. It would make these areas more fun. Start with Deal's 3 and 15 between approx 100 yards out to 50. At those points the land is more stormy seas than gentle ripple and in the troughs , divots cluster like ships dashed on a reef! (Apologies it's the kids creative writing class today😆)
For this to become a thing it would have to start with TOC. 12 would be good place to start....But I fear will only ever see this as I nestle under my duvet...
[/quote
Bingo. Current modern turf HOC concentrates balls and neuters strategy as all balls go to the same places(then the fairway flatteners arrive-yes i just witnessed it at a hundred year old well heeled club where I suggested merely raising the mower cut).
Amazingly the shorter tighter lies are done to placate the elite players, the very ones who are best able to hit the sidehill, flier, and unpredictable lies that would result from slightly longer grass. An additional benefit, besides cost and strategy, would be that the average player would have a much easier time hitting the middle of the face, rather than the bottom groove or bottoming out behind the ball from too tight of fairways.
The tighter the turf the more divots as well, as longer grass creates less need for trapping action to compress the ball, to say nothing of the concentration of divots Tony references. Slightly longer often results in no divots for many players.
I recently played the Tree Farm, and the new Tahoma bermuda isn't being cut or verticut frequently due to both their newness and not being open yet. The fairways have some substance, aren't super tight, but are dry and firm and produce the crispest feel of any non links turf I've ever played. In short, perfect turf.
Bump and runs are completely possible and satisfying, but there's enough turf yet firmness to hit any shot you want around the green, and one actually can attempt the multiple trajectory options presented, rather than being forced into a hybrid or putter which has become such an obligatory staple on modern HOC turf.
-
It's not a shaper issue, I believe it to be an "acceptance" issue by golf architects, clients, supts and the golf world in general.
Indeed.
Tommy W, you might enjoy this: I used google images to find where your photo was from, and got a listing of just about every UK course....except the answer. :)
I love roly poly land (that's what I call it). I don't see it nearly enough in modern courses (well, the few I've played). I think Don't probably correct on why. It frustrates golfers like few other things, and the game is hard enough for most of us that we don't like to be frustrated in such a way. Kinda sad, doesn't speak well of us golfers......
That’s funny. It is Six at Westward Ho!
-
Tommy W, you might enjoy this: I used google images to find where your photo was from, and got a listing of just about every UK course....except the answer. :)
I am much faster than Google at golf photos.
-
St. Patricks was built perfectly. A fair amount of construction work happened but it was all in the right, necessary places. It shows the skill of Tom and his team. As a counter - and only because he gets close to mentioning it - I always thought the photos of Tara Iti made it look a little over-shaped. I understand that due to the tree clearance the whole site needed re-grading so some shaping was necessary.
Ally:
You know a lot more about St Patrick’s than you do about Tara Iti, which was 3x more work to build, because every square inch of it had to be put back together, and every edge considered. Maybe there are some places with too much micro contour for your tastes, but there is a good balance of fairways like the 8th and 9th that have a lot of gentle movement. (I suspect that’s why some people think it’s my best work.)
By the same token, we had a much tighter budget to build St Patrick’s, and it was a conscious decision to do less shaping and leave more things alone (although maybe Eric and I should have reminded Clyde and Angela about that a bit more often). We were properly wary of tearing up too much ground, because the growing season in Ireland is so short that you can’t be sure you’ll be able to get turf established on a lot of open sand. It was a very different process to Tara Iti or Pacific Dunes or Ballyneal.
I understand the two courses had a completely different process. Perhaps that is the crux of it: Nothing beats a course on a good site where much of the landscape can be left as nature provides. A wholly constructed course always looks like it has been constructed, however skilfully
Looking at Padraig Dooley’s photos of Tara Iti, I only see one or two holes where the micro-contour looks very wrinkled. In a holistic sense, I love that. I just don’t know if I’m so on board when it’s built rather than found. Or maybe it’s more the partial uniformity in peak and trough height and spacing. Possibly it’s the amount of shaped sand it ties to rather than a stabilised dune system.
But don’t mind me. The place looks amazing and I hope to visit it one day.
-
It may be that Alister MacKenzie's thoughts on this are not relevant today, but he said:
"An almost equally common delusion is that fairways should be flat....there are few things more monotonous than playing every short shot from a dead flat fairway. The unobservant player never seems to realize the one of the chief charms of the best seaside links is the undulating fairways...where one never has the same shot to play twice over."
"In this connection I would point out that constructors should be careful not to make hillocks so high in the direct line to the hole that they block out the view..."
"The greatest compliment to the constructor is for players to think his artificial work is natural. On Alwoodley and Moortown practically every green and every hummock has been artificially made, yet it is difficult to convince a stranger that this is so. I remember the chairman of a green committee...telling me that it would be impossible to make their course anything like Alwoodley, as there we had such a wealth of natural hollows, hillocks, and undulations. It was only with great difficulty that I was able to persuade him that...these natural features which he so much admired had all been created artificially."
If seems that if the roly poly fairway wrinkles are small and varied enough and flowing in the right way for drainage and play, the balls will hang on them and they won't all run to the same spots. Can I get a patent on the little tesla roomba undulator machine? We could sell it to every constructor and greenskeeper: "The Wrinkly Undulator" or "The Crumpling Rumpler."