[Joe Hancock]

...is almost always admired and sometimes worshiped amongst us.

Does it ever get in the way of design intent?

For instance, perhaps a hole is designed and built to use a slope that is short and right of the green. To get close to certain pins, the shot would have to utilize this feature. But, what if the slope has micro-features (rumple) that make this less, or even un-predictable. Is the beloved rumple now a design liability?

Or, put another way, when does rumple quit being cool and begin to be annoying?

Joe

[Anthony_Nysse]

Or, put another way, when does rumple quit being cool and begin to be annoying?

When your in a maintenance vehicle trying to catch an employee
and you're bouncing all over the place..... In all seriousness, not a big fan of "the rumple."

Tony Nysse
Sr. Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI, SC

[Scott Witter]

Joe:

I have found rumpled ground to be an asset many times and I do like its natural appeal, though having been on many many historic layouts in the US, I don't recall too many that had the rumpled ground you speaking of and that which is admired on GCA. This is neither a good point or a bad one, just an observation.  I think it could certainly become tidious if not executed correctly, or in the case of a great natural site, if the architect doesn't carefully consider where this feature is located with respect to its impact on shots played.  Though this would seems to be an obvious aspect to get right and those who have been practicing this on their work appear to be doing it well.

I believe it has its place as it clearly has good lineage overseas and works well there, the problem is many Americans who still refuse to learn and accept the ground game, the rub of the green and how to play it as it lies.  They still believe their games and the outcome should be fairly predictable which I find to be nonsense.  That said, I am thankful that guys like C & C, the Renaissance Crew, Gil Hanse & Jim Wagner and many others, sorry to those not mentioned have given this feature a rebirth.  Like anything, however, it can be abused if not in the right hands.

[ed_getka]

Joe,
   I would say it would become annoying if more often than not the ball didn't go where it was expected to. Assuming I'm using the right feature that is.

When I get myself out of position, which I often do as you know, I will always look for some ground feature I can try to use to get my ball to the hole, when the direct line is beyond my capabilities or there is too much risk.

[Bill_Yates]

Joe,
In your original example, perhaps the rumpled ground is not in the wrong place. I would argue that maybe the green site and design of the green was wrong.  

In other words why didn't the architect find a way to positively incorporate the natural flow of the ground into the strategy of the hole and the design of the green?  I believe that the ability to do that creates the unique playability and challenges that many of us love about the old original links holes - on those courses they put the greens in precisely the right places to utilize the rumpled ground to intrigue and challenge the player.

[Mike_Young]

Joe,
I have seen several "restorations" where the entire green complex and bunkers were rebuilt and it was obvious in the approach where the fairway went from rumpled to "new smooth".....another reason not to let the fox in the henhouse.
Mike

[Peter Pallotta]

Joe
I hope you don't mind a little aside before I answer.

I found it interesting that you asked the question in the way that you did, because it would've never occurred to me to do the same.

You asked the question in two parts, i.e. in terms of design intent and playability.  I think you did that because of your perspective as industry professional (in the building/construction and maintenance sides) and as a good-to-very-good golfer.

But I'm neither of those things, and while I'm happy to PLAY golf just about anywhere, I tend to THINK ABOUT these kinds of questions a little more from the visual/aesthetic side.

(It's like a lot of the questions I've been asking lately re: what makes the golfing experience a pleasant one, what design approaches/techniques helps that experience seems the most natural etc.)

And from that perspective, I'm reminded of the recent pictures from Behr's Victoria and Dye's Golf Club; both courses I liked aesthetically very much, because both seem very at ease with themselves, and comfortable in the own skins.

I know that's a poor description, but it's what occurred to me both times. Those courses seem "all of one piece".  They fit their surroundings; and, since in both cases those surroundings don’t include any British-coastal-style-rumpled-ground, neither do their fairways or green-sites have this rumpled ground look.  

And so, to answer your question: I think rumpled ground works best only when the golfer can have some reasonable belief that said rumpled ground extends far beyond the confines of the field of play/course itself, i.e. that it's natural to the site (or to use a term I just learned, "site-natural").  

Otherwise, it is simply an unsuccessful homage to a different place and time, and, speaking for myself only, I think those kind of homages tend (to use a term from theatre) to "break the fourth wall"; in other words, they don’t help foster the illusion of naturalness, they shatter it.

Hope this whole post wasn't an aside. To get the discussion back to more useful/practical ground, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the example you gave.

Thanks
Peter    

[Mike Nuzzo]

Joe,
Yes it can get in the way.
It is best to have multiple paths... but every once in a while I'm good with only one path.
Come on back down and we'll test her out.

What specific hole are you referring to?

Pete,
I'm in full agreement with your eloquence -- don't force them.
I'm not in agreement with your humbleness however.  

Cheers

[Joe Hancock]

Thank you all for your responses so far.

I don't have a particular hole as an example, but have contemplated the conflict between my own preference for rumpled, uneven ground(visually) vs. the predictability afforded by deliberate, smooth shaping of features intended for a specific purpose.

I think Peter hit something important in that the rumple has to be believable, i.e. it has to be something native to the area. Otherwise, it looks something like what Mike Young pointed out in a restoration....original rumple fairway met by new construction that is all smoothed out and sticking out like a sore thumb.

Perhaps a side thought on all this is the methodology of an architect and how he or she designs: if they are fitting golf to the land, the rumple is fine. If they design from a strategy first standpoint, they may have to work the land more to make the design intent actually work.

For discussion purposes only....

Joe

[Joe Hancock]

Sean,

Just to be a devil's advocate.....is NGLA an example of the wierd bits, or an architect making strategy happen? (I've not yet played there, but it appears to be loaded with strategy).

Also...whats the smooth, roundish spot of unrumpled ground at the end of the pictured golf hole you posted? Any particular reason that isn't like it's surrounding ground?

 

[RJ_Daley]

Sean, my take on that photo and the course as depicted, is that it is a very odd and unique piece of ground, with a history or expectation that you are going to have a certain kind of round there, unlike general golf conditions.  The FW looks like it isn't mowed much and pretty high cut at that.  Perhaps it is the obvious rumpled nature that won't even accomodate a gang / reel mower set at much less than 1".  (a guess only)

So, if you show up at Kington, you already expect to be playing a round where all heck could break loose on just about any place your ball is running.

BTW, do you know what causes such a micro frequency of rumples and rolls there?

As Joe describes his example, he wants to know if it is better to smooth out a micro rumple in a generally relavant sloped or feature area that is incorporated in the strategy of executing towards the green or a place on the green, or a garden spot in a FW.  

While I love the rumpled look and ball reaction on most of the courses I've played where the rumple was there and used effectively, I don't think it belongs as a micro influence on a purely graded area that has a ground purpose to add a ground option of channelling a ball towards a specific goal.  Thus, manufactured rumples don't generally come off well, aesthetically, nor in context that you've tricked up an area with a micro feature to go against how the general manufactured feature is supposed to work.  

Finally, isn't the soil also part of the equation.  We can live with and expect and see rumples naturally in sandy links soils.  MacKenzie talked about the wind patterns on the sand, causing patterns of ripples, and described using them in design.  Those are rumples and can be used perpendicularly and laterally, depending on the strategy he was setting up.

But, rumples on clayey soils, seems to me to be counter productive.  That sort of soil under well maintained and irrigated turf is going to generally be softer, and counterproductive to the ball action one seeks in providing a ground alternative with slopes, turbo boosts, bound-ons, and deflection noses, etc.  

[Norbert P]

Barnbougle  8th fairway looking back from green.

I took this picture against the setting sun (fo pah), but it does demonstrate the agitated ground.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()