[Thomas Dai]

Terrific example (and photos) Sean.
Up and over the hill into the prevailing wind from the tee and then the need for some careful positioning. And, in a nice way, it's a beastly green-complex and putting surface. Even if your only 50 yds short of the green there's a decision to be made as to whether your next shot ought to be a lay-up!
atb

[Blake Conant]

Brian Schneider's renovation work at Llanerch CC in Philadelphia resembles fortification, with greenside and fairway hazards being very intentional abrupt landforms, cops, mounds, pits, etc.  9 holes were done last fall with the other 9 slated to be done this fall.


Gil's work at Savannah GC in Georgia looked to be planning a bit of a reroute to either incorporate some civil war mounding or at least bring you closer to it.  Remember seeing his instagram awhile back with a photo of the civil war era stuff, not sure where that project stands however.


Vicksburg CC in Mississippi is an old Stiles course that's quite close to the Vicksburg National Military Park.  An interstate separates the two now, but there could still be some some fortification stuff scattered throughout the course

[Mike Bodo]

I have a lot of time for these sorts of greens and worry for their future. 

Josh's example at Urbana is very fine.  It could be that like blind shots, folks have a hard time accepting these type of greens if they are man made.  The Urbana example is tabletop and effectively blind.  Its the sort of green I can imagine Colt building edge/corner knobs to signal the extent of the putting surface.

Perhaps my favourite







Ciao

All three examples above are super cool and daunting looking green complexes. Are all of them from the same course?

[Jeff_Brauer]

What in particular has happened within the game to alter the perception that greens should be 'protected' or 'defended' in the kind of way such terms describe? 

Changes in general architectural philosophy, construction techniques, equipment, maintenance, the rules, the desire for 'fairness', etc etc.[/size]

To answer the philosophical part of Thomas' original post (and as usual, just MHO)

- A casualty of a  long slow march towards more "fairness" in design.
-A switch from match play to stroke play, to avoid what Mac called "piling up a score"
- Even in match play, really, does a hole need to potentially separate golfers by any more than 1 stroke?  Conceptually, building a hole that may cause repetitive misses doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  Of all the design concepts, this one probably ranks lower than most. 
-Are we bemoaning it's loss via intellectual thinking or nostalgia?
-Add in mechanized mowers and the steep slopes and sand bunkers became even less practical.
-Current pace of play issues make it less practical.
-If you hate ball marks, imagine a small green where a foursome might actually have a total of 8-25 or more pitch shots to the green...….

I have built a few.  The first modern example of this for me was a John Fought short par 3 hole, small to medium size elevated green (about 5-6 feet, I couldn't see the green surface from my lie) with one pot bunker (probably not even necessary) and fw cut dropping off all the way around to kick balls well away from the green.  I think he first did it while apprenticing under Bob Cupp, and I think that later, he made if one of his more often used template greens.

Conceptually, I think the "2 or 20" hole was among these types.  Mike DeVries has one up in Michigan at Kingsley which is narrow, if not a platform.

[Sean_A]

I have a lot of time for these sorts of greens and worry for their future. 

Josh's example at Urbana is very fine.  It could be that like blind shots, folks have a hard time accepting these type of greens if they are man made.  The Urbana example is tabletop and effectively blind.  Its the sort of green I can imagine Colt building edge/corner knobs to signal the extent of the putting surface.

Perhaps my favourite







Ciao

All three examples above are super cool and daunting looking green complexes. Are all of them from the same course?

Mike

Sorry I didn't identify the hole. Yes, same green, 13 at Cleeve Hill. A completely outrageous long par 4 from the daily tee. More often than not the approach is blind over a rise. It is completely understandable that an archie wouldn't build such a hole today. But it is also completely reasonable that OTM used this Iron Age hill fortification as a green site.

Ciao

[Mike Bodo]

Mike

Sorry I didn't identify the hole. Yes, same green, 13 at Cleeve Hill. A completely outrageous long par 4 from the daily tee. More often than not the approach is blind over a rise. It is completely understandable that an archie wouldn't build such a hole today. But it is also completely reasonable that OTM used this Iron Age hill fortification as a green site.

Ciao

Wow, from the different angles the photos were taken it looks like three different green complexes. Pretty remarkable. Personally speaking, I'd LOVE to see green complexes similar to this on more new courses.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()