[Jerry Kluger]

We often see players of all levels surprised at how a particular putt broke and I wonder if the architect/shaper realized this would happen during the construction of the green.  Big breaks off big slopes are obvious but the subtle breaks that are hard to see can be the most challenging to the player so sometimes I wonder if the architect really planned it that way. 

[John Emerson]

Many times inaccurate top dressing practices can form those super subtle breaks over time.

[Jon Wiggett]

As John says top dressing is a factor but also growth rate variation and subsidence must be added to this. Most subtle slopes are not designed but rather just are.

[Thomas Dai]

Some other things that might have an effect include sand splash, drains subsiding, drought/dampness, consistent foot/machinery traffic patterns, patching of damaged areas. And then there are other non-ground variables that will effect the subtlety of a breaking putt such as the wind. Shade might too in some places.
Atb

[Ian Andrew]

Just about every architect uses a laser level. Most check slopes regularly as they create a green surface. So I would expect almost every answer to be there are very few surprises after the fact.

Due to ice, in Canada, we have a keep a minimum slope too and so your always working between minimums and maximums to find the pin locations between the features. You need the laser a lot.

The final stage of finishing any green is a pretty rigid and meticulous process that involves a lot of shooting grades to check the results.


Hope that helped answer the question.

[Jerry Kluger]

The subtle breaks which occur over time can be frustrating but more importantly the ones that are there from the beginning which are the most challenging to see.  So often after you miss a putt and cannot understand how it broke in the direction that it did you go back and see how it did happen.  I think it is because we fail to look at contours which are within a few feet of the cup.


No doubt the architect recognizes the slope limits at the cup but the change in the contour within a few feet of the cup, while ever so slight, can be the difference between a putt going in or missing.

[Greg Chambers]

I’m not sure what you’re talking about...you tend to babble.  But anyway, most of your argument seems to be more related to daily hole locations than with the actual contour of the green...

[Bruce Hospes]

Please define an "inaccurate topdressing practice". 

[Tom_Doak]

Please define an "inaccurate topdressing practice".

Topdressing material gets distributed unevenly by the spreader, especially at the edges of the green where they turn the machine around.  On many older courses there is a noticeable lumpy “ring” around the green due to buildup over time - especially if those areas are short grass and not hidden by rough.


As to the opening post, we always check grades for all hole locations- I spend probably half my onsite design time working on the green surfaces.  I can tell you how most putts will break from memory, But you can never really look at every putt from every angle.

[Jerry Kluger]

Tom: When you go back to the courses you've built and play them how often are you surprised with how a putt broke? Is that something you find to be good or just something that happens and you're okay with it?

[Mike_Young]

A few years back when the USGA had convinced all that greens had to be USGA there were all kinds of "contours missed" during construction but they were not discovered for years if ever.  What I am saying is that the final green contour is done once the top of the gravel layer is in place and there is supposedly no deviation in the parallel layers of the green construction.  But that rarely happened,  I have seen some of the big sigs go on a site and move sand around to get the contour they wanted with little regard for the gravel contours.  I have seen it varied by as much as an extra 15 inches.  I am thinking the USGA spec says no more than .5 inch variation from gravel contour to the top of mix contour...

[Ian Andrew]

I have seen some of the big sigs go on a site and move sand around to get the contour they wanted with little regard for the gravel contours.  I have seen it varied by as much as an extra 15 inches.  I am thinking the USGA spec says no more than .5 inch variation from gravel contour to the top of mix contour...

It's why a few architects design greens to finished grade, then have the contractor remove the layers and builds the green back up using surveying. It's more expensive, but not as bad as you would think if the equipment is allocated for that right from the outset. Golf professionals like this because they can - and understand - the finished product easier.

Not everyone can visualize that a roll in the sub-grade grows in the finished grade.

[Carson Pilcher]

I've also heard of architects rolling a basketball around the greens when they are sand only and about to be grassed.  This allows the ball to "break" and the architect can check the slopes.

[Tom_Doak]

I've also heard of architects rolling a basketball around the greens when they are sand only and about to be grassed.  This allows the ball to "break" and the architect can check the slopes.

I have designed more wild greens than most architects, but I had never heard of this method until a couple of years ago, when David Kidd mentioned it in an article about Sand Valley.  His football must have been slightly deflated when he built the Castle Course!  😀


We don’t have any greens at Houston severe enough to worry over, but if we do some in Ireland or New Zealand maybe I will try this.

[Derek_Duncan]

I've also heard of architects rolling a basketball around the greens when they are sand only and about to be grassed.  This allows the ball to "break" and the architect can check the slopes.

I've heard of Bob Cupp doing this.

[MClutterbuck]

Aeration of greens has an impact on slopes, I believe. When you look at how soft greens become immediately after aeration, and look closely at vehicles tredding on the green collecting cores and dropping sand, I believe it is inevitable that some micro slopes are modified. 

[Nicolas Joakimides]

Just about every architect uses a laser level. Most check slopes regularly as they create a green surface. So I would expect almost every answer to be there are very few surprises after the fact.

Due to ice, in Canada, we have a keep a minimum slope too and so your always working between minimums and maximums to find the pin locations between the features. You need the laser a lot.

The final stage of finishing any green is a pretty rigid and meticulous process that involves a lot of shooting grades

I built 20 greens in Morocco But  I used a laser only twice to check if that particular  slope was not too strong  ...
I guess everyone is different ! 😉

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom D. makes a good point about the sheer mathematics — you cannot look at every conceivable putt from every conceivable angle. But, as Ian points out, most of us reply on lasers to check and tweak areas. We make sure that areas where we foresee cup locations have adequate space and also that the slope percentages are what we feel best for that spot/area.

On a humorous note, every year (about) I hear from someone who either thinks the late Jack Snyder was smoking something (not!) or that he was wildly creative for a guy doing work in the 1970s. This is because of some of the greens at Cave Creek Park in Phoenix which was built on a solid waste landfill...it's settled every year since being built and a few greens have actually morphed from "normal" to "wacky" and now back to "normal". Could Jack have envisioned this...of course not. The landfill was simply not compacted properly and he had no way of knowing what the City had done for the previous 20+ years.

[John Emerson]

Aeration of greens has an impact on slopes, I believe. When you look at how soft greens become immediately after aeration, and look closely at vehicles tredding on the green collecting cores and dropping sand, I believe it is inevitable that some micro slopes are modified.

If the topdressing and rolling is done properly immediately after aeeification, nothing is changed. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Agree with all architects, we use digital levels to check greens, mostly to assure a minimum 1.5% slope for drainage, 3% (actually up to 3.5% for me) maximum slope in cupping areas, and max <10% for any rolling edges (much steeper and they dry out) and <20% for any sharp tiers, to avoid mowing scalp.


Doing so many public courses, and having a design philosophy of (mostly) gently rolling greens proportionally challenging putts the further away from the hole that they are, its hard to say than any slope between the 1.5-3% range is "wrong". And that's even when I plan my basic slope swales to be different on every green to avoid a "standard break". (i.e., drawing some at 1.75%, some at 2%, some at 2.25%, etc.)


If an architect puts a small, random hump in somewhere, that could easily get lost in topdressing (or construction shaping).  But even then, you could argue that a less prominent mid green hump might be a more effective hazard/challenge as it is less visible to the eye, no?  I'm not sure there would be any "correct" height or size to those.


And, as mentioned, even if I had an intention to deflect a putt from one part of the green via subtle contour to another, what is the random chance of a combo of approach shot finish location on a day when the pin in is where it needs to be?

[Tom_Doak]

even if I had an intention to deflect a putt from one part of the green via subtle contour to another, what is the random chance of a combo of approach shot finish location on a day when the pin in is where it needs to be?

Actually I think you would find that a random contour in the green comes into play more times per day than 90% of the bunkers you build.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD, agree, just was talking about shaping one a particular height or shape to influence a specific putt.  I have seen Tour Pros comment on contours with, "What if I hit it here?" 


So, at least some people (perhaps also on this thread) seem to think we give it more detailed thought than we probably do.  It is one thing to wobble a small tier through a green, that varies in shape and height to provide contour, and cause problems (mostly on the putt from upside to lower areas).  Then, the green plays approximately the same way to anyone who leaves an approach shot above the hole.  This kind of contour would probably affect play more consistently than a small "diddle bump" somewhere in the green.


BTW, presume those were named after the architect Bill Diddle?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()