|
Post by tottenhamordie on Oct 18, 2019 3:46:57 GMT -5
Just wondering if anyone can give me a solid definition of "flat"? When I see break lines moving pretty fast, it doesn't seem "flat" to me. Or tiers on greens that are "flat".
Maybe I need to see an eye doctor so i can spot things like red slopes, tiers, and fast breaks? I'm working on a course right now and want to make sure they aren't too flat, so maybe I need some examples? Enlighten me please.
|
|
|
Post by Celtic Wolf on Oct 18, 2019 4:40:31 GMT -5
If you've got fast moving beads I wouldn't consider it as flat, but I think a green needs at least one tier. Tiers don't necessarily have to have a red slope but a red slope can provide a back stop for any long or wayward shots. For example if you have a pin behind a bunker it would be good to have a red slope at the back, it means a shot hit at the pin won't roll 30 or 40 ft by. I think the only acceptable distance for a straight putt would be from within 5-7ft.
Of course this is all up to preference, I had someone comment that my Pass Beta course has too severe slopes near the pins. But I don't like to give a player an easy putt, I'd like to try and make them work for every birdie or eagle, whether I do that can depend on the player's skill level.
|
|
|
Post by ezzinomilonga on Oct 18, 2019 4:41:46 GMT -5
I'm not sure, cause I haven't see the greens you're talking about. Maybe, as a "flat green" could be considered a green that don't have slopes huge enough, not near to the pin, but simply at some point of the green, that can deviate seriously the ball in the approach. I mean false fronts..or greens separated by tiers..to creates different zones where to place the pins and to keep some additional difficulties. If greens totally misses this kind of things, the approaches will be always too much easy. When the slopes or tiers are too many and always too pronounced, it could be annoying. Probably is a matter to variate, depending everytime also from what distance it will be made a medium approach.
I'm not sure if this was the intended critic..so I could say just a stupid thing. Is hard to judge not having in mind the course. Sorry I can be more helpful.
|
|
|
Post by Celtic Wolf on Oct 18, 2019 6:58:39 GMT -5
This is the flatest green on my current course with just the one yellow slope, but there's a few green slopes there that are borderline yellow. I've not had any comments about it being too flat as of yet.
|
|
|
Post by CiB0RG on Oct 18, 2019 8:13:59 GMT -5
I'm not really sure if I'm correct on this or not but here's my take.
I might refer to a green as "flat" regardless of the speed of the beads or the color of the grids. If the entire green breaks in one uniform direction or in one uniform speed it could be considered flat even though it is on a slope. Even if you add a tier, if that tier still has the same uniform break direction as the rest of the green it can still seem flattish. In order to be able to call a green "contoured" I like to see slopes causing multi-directional breaks over the surface of the green and that give variety to the speed of the beads. Ideally on a contoured green you would be able to make a strategy on your approach shot on how you want to use the slopes on the green to get as close to the pin as possible. On more uniform greens there isn't as much thought that goes into the approach shots because your ideal landing zone becomes much more obvious. A contoured green doesn't necessarily have to have red and yellow slopes everywhere but some of the most interesting greens in my opinion are colorful as long as the area around the pins is fair.
When I make my greens I like to set my tiers first and then on each tier I pick where I want my high point to be. If my green is just a single tier sometimes I pick multiple high points and create some undulations. I'm by no means an expert or an authority in green making. It's been one of the things I've struggled with the most in my designs. Just wanted to share my thoughts about them! I hope some of that makes sense/helps!
|
|
|
Post by CiB0RG on Oct 18, 2019 8:38:18 GMT -5
I should also add. In my opinion flat greens aren't necessarily a bad thing. If you are going for more of a municipal-style course or you want the course to be on the easier side for the casual players then flattish or uniform greens can work. Personally I would say if you intentionally build flatter greens that you may add difficulty elsewhere by either making the green surface smaller or protective hazards but that just keeps things interesting.
The reason some players might consider flatter greens a negative is that they might not have to think as much playing into the greens and they lose that "live engagement" with the course and just start swinging like they are on autopilot. Generally I think a course would be more memorable if the greens keep it interesting. But still, I see nothing wrong with flatness if that is what the designer is going for.
|
|
reebdoog
TGCT Design Competition Directors
Posts: 2,742
TGCT Name: Brian Jeffords
Tour: CC-Pro
|
Post by reebdoog on Oct 18, 2019 9:14:59 GMT -5
yeah, I'm not sure there is a real solid definition of "flat" other than "This green would be better with more contouring". I mean...that's really all there is. Some courses will lend themselves to flatter greens for any number or reasons. If the greens are small then flatter is no big deal because the challenge is in the size. If a green is tightly surrounded by hazards making it a little flatter is also not a bad idea because again the challenge is less in the putt and more in finding the surface. I don't like either of those a great deal for my own stuff but the philosophy is ok.
If you are looking for ideas or ways to add some contours to greens then by far the easiest and many times the best way to do this is to create the green surface you want to be PLAYED then expand that a couple yards and allow the contours of the surrounding land to work INTO the green itself. Bam. instant contours in the green.
|
|
|
Post by ohheycat on Oct 18, 2019 9:37:11 GMT -5
Yeah I agree with Reeb I just place a green and bunkers, fix up my sightline a bit and i always get an interesting green automatic. If the green is sitting 'naturally' you'll notice the beads already running toward water and away from mountains. Smoothing the location where you want pins will often automatically grant you the yellow/red tiers and already in an orientation that nakes sense. I personally try not to touch my greens any more than necessary. But my macro sculpting is also on point and thats where it all begins
|
|
|
Post by tottenhamordie on Oct 18, 2019 11:46:55 GMT -5
Thanks guys, I'm going to try the "automatic" way on the next hole I put down and see how it turns out. Worried I may have to redo my other greens if it works.
|
|
|
Post by ErixonStone on Oct 18, 2019 12:21:13 GMT -5
In addition to being a nebulous term, "flat" may also be perception becoming the reality. There have definitely been times that I thought a particular putt was "flat" but it turned out that it was actually straight uphill.
I built a course in TGC2 where most of the greens do not have a single slope that appears yellow or red, but the greens are definitely not flat. I've also built courses where every green was multi-tiered, but the tiers themselves were generally flat.
I also have a course in my portfolio where some of the greens are most definitely both flat and level in some large sections. Let's just say that it wasn't my best work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2019 22:32:56 GMT -5
I think the important thing is to recognize that flat greens and contoured greens are not synonymous with wrong greens and right greens. I think there are legitimate reasons for each style depending on the intended course design. I’ve played some great courses in my life that had flatter greens, and I’ve certainly played some awful courses that have undulating greens, and vise versa. If it’s helpful at all, I like to think of it as macro sculpting versus micro sculpting, too. What I mean is that the macro sculpting style of the land will “inform” the design, and somewhat dictate whether undulations are required within the green surfaces. What are the fairways like? What does the overall plot do? What contours does the land have around the green complexes? Those are macro sculpting questions whose answers often lead to how the greens fit the course. Here are two green complexes on similarly designed holes, but on the first one the green is what I would consider flat, and on the second one the green has contouring: As you can tell, both holes are nice golf holes, but more importantly the greens’ flatness or undulation on each one matches the surrounding macro, and therefore each one feels adequately designed. The cool thing is, contoured greens don’t have to mean the course is impossible or really challenging, because once you choose your pin locations you can still provide flatter areas around the holes, even if there are ridges, tiers, or undulations on parts of the green. I would say in that second picture above this is actually the case. I don’t think you need to have yellow and red lines on the greens in the game for them to play well. Here’s another real-world example of a green where the macro sculpting of the land around the green is informing the contours of the putting surface. This one definitely has less flat areas on it, but hopefully it’s helpful in demonstrating the sculpting principle I’m talking about. I would argue that it isn’t the flatness, or even the square footage, of the greens at Sweet Tooth that are a problem on their own, but the combination of the two elements that creates the challenge due to the limitations of the game (we can only hit a putt so far on a flat green in the game, as per the green speed). When I look at the contouring around your green complexes and understand the vibe and purpose of the design, I don’t think your greens are necessarily “too” flat, because they fit in really well with the surrounding macro sculpting. But perhaps limiting the overall footprint of them would help the scaling feel more natural and improve playability by not leaving golfers with really long putts from errant approaches, which can actually be more difficult at times than just having to chip or flop. I apologize, I didn’t mean to turn this into a review, I was just hoping to provide a practical example with my answer to the topic of the OP in case it offered some constructive thoughts on your recent design as you seek feedback.
|
|
|
Post by tottenhamordie on Oct 19, 2019 2:19:42 GMT -5
I think the important thing is to recognize that flat greens and contoured greens are not synonymous with wrong greens and right greens. I think there are legitimate reasons for each style depending on the intended course design. I’ve played some great courses in my life that had flatter greens, and I’ve certainly played some awful courses that have undulating greens, and vise versa. If it’s helpful at all, I like to think of it as macro sculpting versus micro sculpting, too. What I mean is that the macro sculpting style of the land will “inform” the design, and somewhat dictate whether undulations are required within the green surfaces. What are the fairways like? What does the overall plot do? What contours does the land have around the green complexes? Those are macro sculpting questions whose answers often lead to how the greens fit the course. Here are two green complexes on similarly designed holes, but on the first one the green is what I would consider flat, and on the second one the green has contouring: As you can tell, both holes are nice golf holes, but more importantly the greens’ flatness or undulation on each one matches the surrounding macro, and therefore each one feels adequately designed. The cool thing is, contoured greens don’t have to mean the course is impossible or really challenging, because once you choose your pin locations you can still provide flatter areas around the holes, even if there are ridges, tiers, or undulations on parts of the green. I would say in that second picture above this is actually the case. I don’t think you need to have yellow and red lines on the greens in the game for them to play well. Here’s another real-world example of a green where the macro sculpting of the land around the green is informing the contours of the putting surface. This one definitely has less flat areas on it, but hopefully it’s helpful in demonstrating the sculpting principle I’m talking about. I would argue that it isn’t the flatness, or even the square footage, of the greens at Sweet Tooth that are a problem on their own, but the combination of the two elements that creates the challenge due to the limitations of the game (we can only hit a putt so far on a flat green in the game, as per the green speed). When I look at the contouring around your green complexes and understand the vibe and purpose of the design, I don’t think your greens are necessarily “too” flat, because they fit in really well with the surrounding macro sculpting. But perhaps limiting the overall footprint of them would help the scaling feel more natural and improve playability by not leaving golfers with really long putts from errant approaches, which can actually be more difficult at times than just having to chip or flop. I apologize, I didn’t mean to turn this into a review, I was just hoping to provide a practical example with my answer to the topic of the OP in case it offered some constructive thoughts on your recent design as you seek feedback. I just kept hearing the words "flat green" over and over so just wanted some clarification. I have tiers on like 3 or 4 greens too, so not sure why that's so hard to notice. But thanks for the feedback, I am putting all of this into my newest course so it definitely helps.
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on Oct 25, 2019 10:24:47 GMT -5
The best way to not have flat greens is to revert back to the old style of building green pads rather than just laying green over flat natural surfaces. This allows you much more room for slope and undulations without the green becoming a mine field. If you build a green site on natural flat ground the on way you can really sculpt is up. Going down will just litter your greens with puddles. Even just raising up your green 1ft and completely flattening it out before starting to sculpt, will give you a wider variety of ways to sculpt. Get your greens OFF the ground before sculpting them if the natural terrain doesn't allow you do something interesting.
|
|
|
Post by paddyjk19 on Oct 26, 2019 0:51:50 GMT -5
Agreed, a great method for newbie designers is to start with a new plot and turn the hills slider up a fair way, then get the thin blue square raise box out and raise the entire plot by 1 inch.
This will stop the green or fairway flattening out the terrain when you lay it down, you’ll obviously still have to do some flattening and smoothing but this method allows you to work around the generated contours without losing them.
The contours should dictate the layout of the course.
If you see a large bowl area, put a green in it. If you see a plateau on top of a hill, put a green in it. If you see a valley between hills, put a fairway in it.
I’m sure you catch my drift but this is golf architecture in its most primal form, find terrain and let it happen.
|
|