[Thomas Dai]

The thread title is acquired from a comment made in reply 33 to this thread - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,63991.0.html - "The courses that have defined your golfing life"


The comment pretty central to the whole subject of architect.


Any great courses that don't have difficult greens?


Thoughts?


Atb

[JJShanley]

While I haven't played Bethpage Black, I've heard folk say that it has so-so greens.

[Tony_Muldoon]

I prefer what Ally once said said to me during a round


"..at the end of the day, it's all about the greens."




Wouldn't diagree with Tom's statement, as long as it doesnt mean every green has to be difficult.


But then again I played St Emilionnaise this summer and lost count of the no of 3 putts.

[Sean_A]

It depends on what difficult is...really...everyone has a different idea of what makes for difficult greens.  I am of the opinion that a course can be great with only good greens that are subtle and not overly difficult.

I reckon I have played what I consider 39 great courses in GB&I.  I would guess less than two handfuls (maybe one handful) have a diffcult set of greens.  Name the GB&I courses with difficult greens.

I am far more interested in varied greens which are firm and true. 

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

There is a huge difference between greens that are "difficult" and greens that are great.  Any architect can build "difficult" greens. 

[Peter Pallotta]

I don't know much about 'great', but I do know that on the course I play most often the 3 or 4 golf holes that stand out as special are the ones with the best greens, i.e. the most challenging and interesting and, yes, 'difficult' greens. A couple of those are strikingly contoured (relatively speaking), a one is severely canted, and one is angled quite ingeniously to the line of play; and in every case, the quality/challenge of those 4 greens makes the entire golf hole an interesting one -- I'm engaged the moment I step onto the tee, because the difficulties those greens present don't start when I'm putting them, they end there.
     

[Joe Hancock]

I'll give it a go:


Great greens utilize contours and slopes in a strategically sensible fashion to encourage decisions to be made by the golfer as they approach the green. This obviously would include the periphery of the green, including whatever hazard the architect may have chosen to employ. The contours and slopes should have some logic or sense about them; that isn't to say randomness has no place, but the golfer generally seems to want to be in a position of decision-making, and randomness to an extreme takes that away from the player. Contours that are broad and bold enough to be a part of the decision-making process are elements of great greens.

[BCrosby]

I'll give it a go:


Great greens utilize contours and slopes in a strategically sensible fashion to encourage decisions to be made by the golfer as they approach the green. This obviously would include the periphery of the green, including whatever hazard the architect may have chosen to employ. The contours and slopes should have some logic or sense about them; that isn't to say randomness has no place, but the golfer generally seems to want to be in a position of decision-making, and randomness to an extreme takes that away from the player. Contours that are broad and bold enough to be a part of the decision-making process are elements of great greens.

Yep. Good greens dictate play back to the tee.


Bob

[jeffwarne]

It depends on what difficult is...really...everyone has a different idea of what makes for difficult greens.  I am of the opinion that a course can be great with only good greens that are subtle and not overly difficult.

I reckon I have played what I consider 39 great courses in GB&I.  I would guess less than two handfuls (maybe one handful) have a diffcult set of greens.  Name the GB&I courses with difficult greens.

I am far more interested in varied greens which are firm and true. 

Ciao

+1
variety is the spice of life


Golf courses and greens do NOT have to be difficult to be great


Hopefully one day courses will be judged by their varied interest and varied challenge -a challenge(for an expert) could be can you make three on this seemingly easy finishing hole-while giving the long hdcp a chance to go out on a high note (#18 Prestwick,North Berwick, Kington)




I just about puke every time I watch a PGA Tour course that finishes with a 480 par four with water down the left and bunkers on the right.


Every 5 years they play the biggest event in the world on TOC and often shoot lights out-Every great player has won there and nearly always produces a great event and winner (whatever that is)
That said, it does have interesting greens manitained at reasonable pace that would create more strategy if they would stop growing rough [size=78%].[/size]


OT
I love interesting greens that have actual overall tilt and/or plenty of slope-which can creat strategy off the tee Those kind of greens work best when greens are maintained at a speed of10 or below. Of course they can be amped up for an event, but then you are reduced to the most benign of pins.
Generally modern greens attempting slope end up with tiers with minimal slope to keep a ball on them, which is NOT the same as an overall slope maintained at a lower speed.

[Keith Grande]

Are we talking about the actual greens surface only?


There are other nuances to the greens which can make it spectacular - the placement of the greens from fairway  - strategic angles - skyline greens, or greens below the fairway or tee box.  Whether there is a run up area or is the green heavily bunkered in the front?  Is the lie on the approach uneven to the angle of the green?


Bethpage Black has many "vanilla greens" as to contours, but the angles and green complex elevations make them strategic and interesting to get there.  Thinking #2, #4, #5, #6, #16 off the top of my head.
#15 does have interesting slope in addition to elevation. 

[Tom_Doak]

I've started a separate thread about this, because my post yesterday missed the mark a bit.  What I should have said was that being around Crystal Downs so much made me unafraid to design greens with contour.  See my other post:  Don't Design From a Position of Fear

[JC Urbina]

Thomas,

I would take it one step further, it's not just the green surface itself it is the entire green surrounds in my opinion.  The run up to the 2nd green at St Andrews, the surrounds on the 13th at Prestwick, The 9th green at Western Gailes. I am still fascinated with the 11th green at Richmond CC. it fits so well with what is going on around the green, going to use that green for  inspiration someday.

These greens surfaces are all organically connected to the topography surrounding them, by themselves they have no inherent design  value other then being undulating and some would say difficult to putt.

If you stare at the ground and its surrounding topography long enough before creating a green surface something always comes to mind,  I have been building greens that way for 37 years now.  That is how Pete taught me and that's what I will do until I retire from golf course business.

I always appreciated the way Bill Coore worked with the ground, I remember watching him build the 14th green at the Sand Hills, I have told this story more then once. I lived close to Sand Hills ( Denver ) so I made a few trips during construction.
Ben and I sat on the hill above the green and watched Bill fuss with that green forever.  Ben said to me after a long time just watching, he is going to be awhile, lets go look at the something else.  I just laughed and walked away with Ben.

Guess what Bill was working over and over with a sand pro and rake?  The approach to the green surface.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
I am sure you agree, Bill was not fussing over that 14th green "simply trying to make it difficult".  There is so much more (as you and others state) to pure difficulty in what constitutes a great green to me.  We just redid one on an old course that had 7-8% slope from back to front.  It was rediculausly difficult but it sure wasn't great.  Same goes for greens that are overly contoured simply for the sake of making them difficult.  The truly great greens are the ones where all the nuances, the undulations, the runoffs, the flare ups, the knobs, the shoulders, the .... are well integrated with the entire green complex and make at least some strategic sense as you work back through the approach toward the landing area and the tee.
I also agree with Tom in that I definitely see architects who are afraid to design in contour because of green speed.  Nicklaus was one of the first to state this openly at one point with his designs. Not sure where he stands on this issue today?
Mark[/size]

[JC Urbina]

Mark,

I agree, Bill wasn't trying to make the green more difficult he was trying to make it more accessible.  That is really what I learned from watching that day, options, variety, playability.   That is what you get from a Bill and Ben designed course, the detail work that goes into green and the surrounds.  Sand Valley is another course where the little things around the green add up to big payoffs. 

I walked around Sand Valley this summer, both golf courses have that little extra touch around the greens. In my opinon not every hole has to have a green worthy of mass hysteria, but enough of them at the right time to hold your attention.

[George Pazin]

There is a huge difference between greens that are "difficult" and greens that are great.  Any architect can build "difficult" greens.

I'd love to see you expand on this - what differentiates the two, what are examples of great greens that are or aren't difficult, difficult greens that are or aren't great, etc.


Not trying to be difficult, genuinely curious...

[Mark Pearce]

Can I suggest that Ganton and Muirfield are two great courses with sets of what are not exceptionally difficult greens?  Not boring by any means and requiring some skill, but I don't consider either to be particularly difficult and in both cases the factors that make the courses difficult (and both are quite difficult courses) are not the green surfaces themselves.

[Thomas Dai]

Many fascinating and informative responses. Many thanks to all.

As the idea for the thread came from a brief (and maybe misunderstood) quote from Tom it's important to link this thread to the thread he has now raised - "Don't design from a position of fear" - with it's comprehensive initial post - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,64007.0.html

One course I did wonder about was RCD, great course but perhaps with 'so-so'/less challenging putting surfaces. Carnoustie maybe as well, although given how hard/challenging the tee-to-green play is at both of these venues maybe somewhat more easily puttable putting surfaces are appropriate? And then there's the relationship to the whole green complex aspect (I recall a recent thread debating the use the term 'green complex'!) which I was also considering.

Can of worms?

Atb

[Mark_Fine]

George,
I gave an example in my post above:


"We just redid one on an old course that had 7-8% slope from back to front.  It was ridiculously difficult but it sure wasn't great.  Same goes for greens that are overly contoured simply for the sake of making them difficult.  The truly great greens are the ones where all the nuances, the undulations, the runoffs, the flare ups, the knobs, the shoulders, the .... are well integrated with the entire green complex and make at least some strategic sense as you work back through the approach toward the landing area and the tee."


Pebble Beach might be an example of a great course that has a set of greens than may or may not be considered by some to be great or difficult.  If, however, you look at the greens as part of a green complex and not just consider the green surface, they fit perfectly for the golf course. 
Turnberry might be another one where I wouldn't necessarily call the green surfaces themselves difficult but then again it all depends on the conditions of play. 

[Jeff Taylor]

The title of this thread has been on my mind since I returned from Streamsong two weeks ago.

[Tom_Doak]

I also agree with Tom in that I definitely see architects who are afraid to design in contour because of green speed.  Nicklaus was one of the first to state this openly at one point with his designs. Not sure where he stands on this issue today?
Mark

I'm not sure where Jack stands on it today, but I know when we did Sebonack he became a convert to the idea that difficult greens were a good way to challenge the expert player, since you can't build a course long enough to do it that way.  The courses of his that I've seen post-Sebonack have some of the most difficult greens I've ever seen, and on long holes, to boot.  He's gone back and remodeled a couple of them that were just too over the top [Dove Mountain and Dismal River, that I know of], and maybe after that he has toned them down again.


I've seen some that I thought were cool and some that I felt were over the top; I guess that's what some people think of my work, too, but I like to think that I give you lots more room to get to the green as a mitigating factor.

[Sean_A]

I usually associate difficult greens not with slope or contour, but by shape, size and elevation. A prime example is West Links Gate Hole.  Once on the green most putts aren't that bad despite appearancess...the problem is getting on because of size, shape and elevation.  I always figure that no matter how contoured or sloped a green, given enough time and I can learn how to putt it. Its a completely different matter to approaching to tough greens because all the will in the world doesn't guarantee execution to anything like the degree we can do with a putter. 

With few exceptions, I haven't seen many greens I thought were too tough for putting unless they were at silly speeds...and even that is quite rare in my experience.  I realize Renaissance has toned down greens for Doak, but I thought given how narrow the course was that they were too difficult once running over 10ish as they were on the second day I was there. The greenside bunkering takes on an increased prominence with the narrowed fairways and as such it is hard to get into good positions to avoid tough putts. Its a great shame because those greens were some of the best conditioned I have ever seen.

Bottom line for me, tough greens are over-rated.  Most folks can't handle moderately difficult greens so what is the point?

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

I don't think difficult greens are the key to building a great golf course at all.


History will tell you LONG GOLF COURSES are the key to building great golf courses. The Top 100s are dominated by length, it is really hard for a short course to make these best lists and mid-length golf courses (lose points) for not being longer.


When I think of the great courses I have played not many actually have difficult greens.


Like all things there are exceptions and there are shorter courses better for interesting/difficult greens.


There is also one not to far from the Old Course and not that far from Kingsbarns that is much worse for it's 'interesting' and difficult greens.


Variety of the greens is more the key in my opinion.

[George Pazin]

George,
I gave an example in my post above:


"We just redid one on an old course that had 7-8% slope from back to front.  It was ridiculously difficult but it sure wasn't great.  Same goes for greens that are overly contoured simply for the sake of making them difficult.  The truly great greens are the ones where all the nuances, the undulations, the runoffs, the flare ups, the knobs, the shoulders, the .... are well integrated with the entire green complex and make at least some strategic sense as you work back through the approach toward the landing area and the tee."


Pebble Beach might be an example of a great course that has a set of greens than may or may not be considered by some to be great or difficult.  If, however, you look at the greens as part of a green complex and not just consider the green surface, they fit perfectly for the golf course. 
Turnberry might be another one where I wouldn't necessarily call the green surfaces themselves difficult but then again it all depends on the conditions of play. 

You did indeed give an example, I just have a hard time visualizing what a 7-8% slope is. I recall a green at Lehigh that seemed amazingly sloped to me - maybe 13 or 14? It was a par 4 where the drive is a little blind uphill over a ridge. That green seemed incredibly sloped to me, yet it worked really well. Any guesses what the slope is on that, so I have a frame of reference?


I like the Pebble example, I've been there so I can picture that, thanks.

[Mark_Fine]

George,
There are some "parts" of greens at Lehigh that have significant slopes (could be well above 5 or 6% slope) but most of those parts are/were not meant to have hole locations.  The green I was talking about had almost no hole locations.  You could drop a ball in the back of the green and there was a good chance it would roll off the front.  When it was built the green would probably have been rolling at a 5 or 6 on the stimpmeter so it was fine.  At 9 or 10, it is almost unplayable and leads to very limited hole locations. 

[Kalen Braley]

Given the cost to maintain greens...


I'm a tad surprised more courses haven't taken the Pebble approach.  Small greens with plenty of slope, and lots of nasty bunkering/hazards/spots where you don't want to short side yourself or get into otherwise.


Is there any well known course that has less aggregate sq footage for its greens?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()