Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Dean Stokes on November 07, 2011, 06:01:09 PM
-
Ok a question/questions that has been bothering me for sometime......you hit the green from any distance.... lets say a pure 3 iron from over 200 yards, but you miss the slope you had to hit to be in the correct section of the green for a short birdie putt.....you now have 25ft for birdie but no matter whether you were Brad Faxon/Ben Crenshaw in their hayday you cannot get your putt to finish within 10-15 feet of the cup.
Is this good/bad design?
Are the greens too fast for the contouring?
Is it a bad pin position and the greens crew ought be taught better?
Is it just golf....deal with it?
Now I think several of you from reading threads in the past will say you should have hit a better iron shot! However golf is not that easy - not even the paid ranks can do that. This scenario has happened several times to me recently and for me it is one of the most infuriating things in golf. In my opinion if you hit a green you should be able to with skill, the right line and pace be able to get ANY putt within 3 feet. It is my contention that many courses have the greens too fast for the undulations on them. Combine that with a hole cut too near to the slope and the game becomes lets say - not fun! Any thoughts?
-
In my opinion if you hit a green you should be able to with skill, the right line and pace be able to get ANY putt within 3 feet.
It is my contention that many courses have the greens too fast for the undulations on them.
While I will agree with you on the second statement, the first statement is quite ridiculous. ;D ;D
Whatever happened to knowing where and what side to leave your approach?
pin high is often a poor place to be on a green with a pretty good overall back to front or front to back tilt.
I'll take your second statement a step farther-many courses have their greens so fast they lose the best pin placements.
-
Dean:
Why does hitting the green matter? The only true measure of a shot's value is by the amount it increases your chances of holing the next shot.
The GIR is a useless stat, much like batting average in baseball.
-
It could be any of the items on your list.
Just like hairy bunkers and all the marketing slogans that went with the "minimalist" craze, it seems some architects think building undulating greens is cool, when they are really only cool when they work.
I played a course not long ago where the combination of green speeds and contour led to goofy golf...in that almost every putt from over 15 feet had to be banked against something and then roll back to the hole if you wanted to get close. That's fine some of the time, but every putt?
I contrast that experience with having recently played Old Mac at Bandon. Those greens are certainly challenging, but the speed and the contours work and you can recover.
I believe it takes great skill to build a heavily contoured green that also works. And it takes good management to keep the speeds in a range where they work with all the contours.
Obviously, sometimes we're going to miss in the wrong place and three putt, but I don't think its good design if you have zero chance to get within 15 feet.
-
Dean:
Why does hitting the green matter? The only true measure of a shot's value is by the amount it increases your chances of holing the next shot.
The GIR is a useless stat, much like batting average in baseball.
because I cant chip! I much rather hit the putting surface...lol.....a hole I played recently you could not miss the green Kyle and have a shot.....a par 3 with crap everywhere......I hit the green and was probably 30 feet away, hit a great putt and was 20 ft away! I personally think that is a combination of bad design, too fast greens and a crappy pin position - thats all :D
-
It could be any of the items on your list.
Just like hairy bunkers and all the marketing slogans that went with the "minimalist" craze, it seems some architects think building undulating greens is cool, when they are really only cool when they work.
I played a course not long ago where the combination of green speeds and contour led to goofy golf...in that almost every putt from over 15 feet had to be banked against something and then roll back to the hole if you wanted to get close. That's fine some of the time, but every putt?
I contrast that experience with having recently played Old Mac at Bandon. Those greens are certainly challenging, but the speed and the contours work and you can recover.
I believe it takes great skill to build a heavily contoured green that also works. And it takes good management to keep the speeds in a range where they work with all the contours.
Obviously, sometimes we're going to miss in the wrong place and three putt, but I don't think its good design if you have zero chance to get within 15 feet.
Thank you ;D
-
Dean:
Why does hitting the green matter? The only true measure of a shot's value is by the amount it increases your chances of holing the next shot.
The GIR is a useless stat, much like batting average in baseball.
because I cant chip! I much rather hit the putting surface...lol.....a hole I played recently you could not miss the green Kyle and have a shot.....a par 3 with crap everywhere......I hit the green and was probably 30 feet away, hit a great putt and was 20 ft away! I personally think that is a combination of bad design, too fast greens and a crappy pin position - thats all :D
The thing with hole locations is they generally move from day to day. Same thing with green speeds.
Golf shots are strictly results oriented. While it is likely true that you executed your plan for the putt flawlessly, you could not have hit a great putt if the result was only a net 10 foot gain on a 30 foot putt.
-
Blame the Greenskeeper and the Architect, that way you're covered two ways.
-
Seriously, though, the need for the modern golfer to have everything explicable and "make sense" or have a mathematic reason has robbed some of the fun from the game. The old term "rub of the green" no longer applies and the idea seems to be that every shot is makable and that a shot that can't be holed is unfair. This mentality has driven golf maintenance to the brink of disaster both agronomically and financially.
-
In my opinion if you hit a green you should be able to with skill, the right line and pace be able to get ANY putt within 3 feet.
It is my contention that many courses have the greens too fast for the undulations on them.
Dean:
Your first statement is wrong, in my opinion. If anybody besides the best players in the world can get ANY putt within three feet, then the best putters in the world would never three-putt unless they screwed up their first putt. As Kyle points out, you are attempting to draw a line of fairness at the edge of the green, and demand that fairness happen on BOTH sides of the line. There are no such boundaries in golf, or in life.
I wouldn't argue that many courses have their greens too fast ... undulating or not. Unfortunately, it's like talking to a wall to tell most of my clients or their superintendents how I feel. They insist that's what the members or paying guests want.
-
Dean:
Why does hitting the green matter? The only true measure of a shot's value is by the amount it increases your chances of holing the next shot.
The GIR is a useless stat, much like batting average in baseball.
because I cant chip! I much rather hit the putting surface...lol.....a hole I played recently you could not miss the green Kyle and have a shot.....a par 3 with crap everywhere......I hit the green and was probably 30 feet away, hit a great putt and was 20 ft away! I personally think that is a combination of bad design, too fast greens and a crappy pin position - thats all :D
The thing with hole locations is they generally move from day to day. Same thing with green speeds.
Golf shots are strictly results oriented. While it is likely true that you executed your plan for the putt flawlessly, you could not have hit a great putt if the result was only a net 10 foot gain on a 30 foot putt.
That is EXACTLY why i have a problem with such a green and it's pin position......I looked at the putt from every angle with a great caddie from the club....we both concluded there was zero way to get the ball within 15-20ft. Now if you think that is a great meld of design and course set up have at it. I think it is goofy golf and would not pay $250 to be a part of it again. And to Mr. Decker.....I grew up on links courses and hilly parkland courses......you do not need to explain 'rub of the green' to me.......what I am talking about has nothing to do with that.
-
In my opinion if you hit a green you should be able to with skill, the right line and pace be able to get ANY putt within 3 feet.
It is my contention that many courses have the greens too fast for the undulations on them.
Dean:
Your first statement is wrong, in my opinion. If anybody besides the best players in the world can get ANY putt within three feet, then the best putters in the world would never three-putt unless they screwed up their first putt. As Kyle points out, you are attempting to draw a line of fairness at the edge of the green, and demand that fairness happen on BOTH sides of the line. There are no such boundaries in golf, or in life.
I wouldn't argue that many courses have their greens too fast ... undulating or not. Unfortunately, it's like talking to a wall to tell most of my clients or their superintendents how I feel. They insist that's what the members or paying guests want.
Tom, there would never have been such a pin position on the PGA tour because the players would have been up in arms!
-
In my opinion if you hit a green you should be able to with skill, the right line and pace be able to get ANY putt within 3 feet.
It is my contention that many courses have the greens too fast for the undulations on them.
Dean:
Your first statement is wrong, in my opinion. If anybody besides the best players in the world can get ANY putt within three feet, then the best putters in the world would never three-putt unless they screwed up their first putt. As Kyle points out, you are attempting to draw a line of fairness at the edge of the green, and demand that fairness happen on BOTH sides of the line. There are no such boundaries in golf, or in life.
I wouldn't argue that many courses have their greens too fast ... undulating or not. Unfortunately, it's like talking to a wall to tell most of my clients or their superintendents how I feel. They insist that's what the members or paying guests want.
Tom, there would never have been such a pin position on the PGA tour because the players would have been up in arms!
You have obviously never been to The Masters!
-
Dean:
Why does hitting the green matter? The only true measure of a shot's value is by the amount it increases your chances of holing the next shot.
The GIR is a useless stat, much like batting average in baseball.
because I cant chip! I much rather hit the putting surface...lol.....a hole I played recently you could not miss the green Kyle and have a shot.....a par 3 with crap everywhere......I hit the green and was probably 30 feet away, hit a great putt and was 20 ft away! I personally think that is a combination of bad design, too fast greens and a crappy pin position - thats all :D
The thing with hole locations is they generally move from day to day. Same thing with green speeds.
Golf shots are strictly results oriented. While it is likely true that you executed your plan for the putt flawlessly, you could not have hit a great putt if the result was only a net 10 foot gain on a 30 foot putt.
That is EXACTLY why i have a problem with such a green and it's pin position......I looked at the putt from every angle with a great caddie from the club....we both concluded there was zero way to get the ball within 15-20ft. Now if you think that is a great meld of design and course set up have at it. I think it is goofy golf and would not pay $250 to be a part of it again. And to Mr. Decker.....I grew up on links courses and hilly parkland courses......you do not need to explain 'rub of the green' to me.......what I am talking about has nothing to do with that.
You concluded it would take a 15-20 footer to hole the shot? I think a golfer would then put themselves in a position to have the easiest 15-20 foot putt imaginable as the method of solving that particular problem.
I don't think it is great, but I also don't think it's unreasonable to ask a golfer to hole a 15-20 foot putt either.
-
Interesting responses to Dean's original question. Kyle has already run with his fairness piece, but I thought Dean's question was, is this good design. I tried to answer the question with the data Dean supplied, didn't instantly label him a wimp, and took him at his word.
So a 200 yd par 3, with no place to miss the green, and impossible to get with in 20 ft if you miss 30 foot right is good design? I'm sticking with no as my answer.
Kyle, I know of a few golf courses like this, I will not be playing them again but I can steer you to them if you like.
-
Dean:
Why does hitting the green matter? The only true measure of a shot's value is by the amount it increases your chances of holing the next shot.
The GIR is a useless stat, much like batting average in baseball.
because I cant chip! I much rather hit the putting surface...lol.....a hole I played recently you could not miss the green Kyle and have a shot.....a par 3 with crap everywhere......I hit the green and was probably 30 feet away, hit a great putt and was 20 ft away! I personally think that is a combination of bad design, too fast greens and a crappy pin position - thats all :D
The thing with hole locations is they generally move from day to day. Same thing with green speeds.
Golf shots are strictly results oriented. While it is likely true that you executed your plan for the putt flawlessly, you could not have hit a great putt if the result was only a net 10 foot gain on a 30 foot putt.
That is EXACTLY why i have a problem with such a green and it's pin position......I looked at the putt from every angle with a great caddie from the club....we both concluded there was zero way to get the ball within 15-20ft. Now if you think that is a great meld of design and course set up have at it. I think it is goofy golf and would not pay $250 to be a part of it again. And to Mr. Decker.....I grew up on links courses and hilly parkland courses......you do not need to explain 'rub of the green' to me.......what I am talking about has nothing to do with that.
You concluded it would take a 15-20 footer to hole the shot? I think a golfer would then put themselves in a position to have the easiest 15-20 foot putt imaginable as the method of solving that particular problem.
I don't think it is great, but I also don't think it's unreasonable to ask a golfer to hole a 15-20 foot putt either.
For their second putt? I think it is completely unreasonable and akin to playing putt putt.
-
In my opinion if you hit a green you should be able to with skill, the right line and pace be able to get ANY putt within 3 feet.
It is my contention that many courses have the greens too fast for the undulations on them.
Dean:
Your first statement is wrong, in my opinion. If anybody besides the best players in the world can get ANY putt within three feet, then the best putters in the world would never three-putt unless they screwed up their first putt. As Kyle points out, you are attempting to draw a line of fairness at the edge of the green, and demand that fairness happen on BOTH sides of the line. There are no such boundaries in golf, or in life.
I wouldn't argue that many courses have their greens too fast ... undulating or not. Unfortunately, it's like talking to a wall to tell most of my clients or their superintendents how I feel. They insist that's what the members or paying guests want.
Tom, there would never have been such a pin position on the PGA tour because the players would have been up in arms!
You have obviously never been to The Masters!
Tom, I've been three times. Can you tell me where the Masters committee sets a pin that a tour player who hits a perfect putt from 30 feet cannot stop the ball within 3 feet of the cup please. Maybe #16 back left/ maybe the front of #9 but I still think that can be done. My initial question is to do with pin positions where no matter how perfect the putt the ball cannot be stopped within 10-15 feet of the hole.
-
Don:
I am legitimately questioning the impossibility of the situation.
I'm also not questioning yours, or Dean's, fortitude with the situation. However, I feel Dean's opinion does lie in direct conflict with a sporting attitude I generally take for golf. In my mind, the question to Dean is, "so what?" He described his tastes and as I stated in the other thread, my desire is to determine exactly how and where that taste was developed.
Saying something is akin to putt putt, for me, is not very enlightening. However, exploring why that opinion is applied should generate a good discussion on the nature of just what actually is reasonable and not reasonable as a test of skill. So the golfer is asked to make a putt longer than 3 feet. For me, the question is: how do I play the prior shots in order to overcome that problem. Just because that question has a difficult answer does not me it has a bad one. For Dean, that may not be the case, but perhaps he would look at the hole differently after this discussion.
Furthermore, how far away from the hole is too far? What makes 15 feet more abhorrent than 10 feet? 5 feet? When does the architecture and the ball speed identify a good lag putt and why must 3 feet be the measure of that? If 15 feet is the best a lag can do... so what?
-
Kyle...
IS IT GOOD ARCHITECTURE?????
There's a little course my father in law plays in N MI.
They have a par 3, its 180 uphill to a green that might be 1500 sq ft. There is a chain link fence that runs down the right side, its OB and about 3 steps off the side of the green. On the left there is a grove of trees that over hang the left edge of the green, There is a bunker in front that closes off the entire front of the green. Is that good architecture, or have we morphed into a site where the quality of architecture no longer matters, its only can you eventually get the ball into the hole?
-
Don:
I am legitimately questioning the impossibility of the situation.
I'm also not questioning yours, or Dean's, fortitude with the situation. However, I feel Dean's opinion does lie in direct conflict with a sporting attitude I generally take for golf. In my mind, the question to Dean is, "so what?" He described his tastes and as I stated in the other thread, my desire is to determine exactly how and where that taste was developed.
Saying something is akin to putt putt, for me, is not very enlightening. However, exploring why that opinion is applied should generate a good discussion on the nature of just what actually is reasonable and not reasonable as a test of skill. So the golfer is asked to make a putt longer than 3 feet. For me, the question is: how do I play the prior shots in order to overcome that problem. Just because that question has a difficult answer does not me it has a bad one. For Dean, that may not be the case, but perhaps he would look at the hole differently after this discussion.
Furthermore, how far away from the hole is too far? What makes 15 feet more abhorrent than 10 feet? 5 feet? When does the architecture and the ball speed identify a good lag putt and why must 3 feet be the measure of that? If 15 feet is the best a lag can do... so what?
and I am saying that if 15 feet is the best a lag can do then the design of the green is dreadful or the design is good but the speeds of the greens are too fast for the architects playing intentions. Simple really. I am not looking to shoot 62 every round and I am all for rolling the ball back, making driver heads smaller and getting rid of long putters that make the game easier for some. And i do not expect golf to be fair but i do not think my questions have anything to do with fairness.
-
Can you tell me where the Masters committee sets a pin that a tour player who hits a perfect putt from 30 feet cannot stop the ball within 3 feet of the cup please. Maybe #16 back left/ maybe the front of #9 but I still think that can be done. My initial question is to do with pin positions where no matter how perfect the putt the ball cannot be stopped within 10-15 feet of the hole.
Dean:
I don't know Augusta well enough to argue this to death. I guess a lot of the argument would be over the definition of "cannot". We see many situations at The Masters each year where a great player doesn't get the putt within 5-10 feet ... hard to know for sure, but I would guess there are a few situations there where he still wouldn't get it within 3 feet if you gave him ten tries, which would be my definition of "can't."
I do know Crystal Downs well enough to argue the point. The last time I played it with Ben Crenshaw, we repeatedly tried a couple of putts where neither of us could get the ball to settle anywhere near the hole. Is that bad design? In one instance, the putt would have been makeable if the greens were 8 or 9 on the Stimpmeter instead of 12; on the other, I don't think we could have got it inside three feet even with a slower green, but we might not have kept putting it off the green and down the hill. :)
All that, of course, was after Ben saying on the way over there that he thought on most really great greens, there was a bit of fear of putting off the green.
P.S. to Don:
The hole you just described is pretty close to the 11th at Crystal Downs, except that the green is a bit bigger than that (and a lot more severe), and there's not a bunker right in front.
-
Kyle...
IS IT GOOD ARCHITECTURE?????
There's a little course my father in law plays in N MI.
They have a par 3, its 180 uphill to a green that might be 1500 sq ft. There is a chain link fence that runs down the right side, its OB and about 3 steps off the side of the green. On the left there is a grove of trees that over hang the left edge of the green, There is a bunker in front that closes off the entire front of the green. Is that good architecture, or have we morphed into a site where the quality of architecture no longer matters, its only can you eventually get the ball into the hole?
I'd have to see for myself. I don't believe the options presented by the set up are particularly compelling.
Good and Bad are way to subjective for me. It's probably good to somebody. It's a matter of taste. Somebody, somewhere, probably gets a thrill out of it. Does that make it BAD? I don't really think so, there.
I am much more interested in determining quality by the emotions wrought, and the reasons those emotions are conjured. Let's take apart that hole, what are the best ways to score low? Just because it's a par 3 doesn't mean that the green should be reached in one shot would be my first thought. Maybe the pitch from in front of the bunker would be exciting to try and get close.
Dean:
How do you differentiate between what is unreasonable and what is unfair? Where did the expectation of how a course defines a quality lag come from?
-
Ok a question/questions that has been bothering me for sometime......you hit the green from any distance.... lets say a pure 3 iron from over 200 yards, but you miss the slope you had to hit to be in the correct section of the green for a short birdie putt.....you now have 25ft for birdie but no matter whether you were Brad Faxon/Ben Crenshaw in their hayday you cannot get your putt to finish within 10-15 feet of the cup.
Dean,
What happens if you and Don's kid play this hole together and his kid drives it to 115 and pulls his sand wedge 30 feet left of the hole and it stops 6 inches from your ball and neither of you can get it inside 15 feet with the putt. Is it better design for the kid?
-
Kyle, I have not tried to differentiate between unreasonable and unfair. I have had a long day and do not understand your second question! In my eyes if there is no way to execute a 30 ft putt, which to me means getting within a 3ft circle(how we were taught as juniors), then the green design and/or green speed is unreasonable.....we played a resort course recently where on the first hole 3 of the 4 of us had putts inside 20 feet. Not one of us had a second putt shorter than 10 feet and two were nearer 15 feet. We laughed and commented that it was 'Mickey mouse' golf.....the caddies did not disagree. Do you enjoy that kind of design? Personally if I were ever to hit the lottery and have a go at my own course design I would have plenty of undulations in the greens but they would be designed so that a great putt, even having to use some imagination could finish close.....if you can't I would call it bad architecture.
-
Ok a question/questions that has been bothering me for sometime......you hit the green from any distance.... lets say a pure 3 iron from over 200 yards, but you miss the slope you had to hit to be in the correct section of the green for a short birdie putt.....you now have 25ft for birdie but no matter whether you were Brad Faxon/Ben Crenshaw in their hayday you cannot get your putt to finish within 10-15 feet of the cup.
Dean,
What happens if you and Don's kid play this hole together and his kid drives it to 115 and pulls his sand wedge 30 feet left of the hole and it stops 6 inches from your ball and neither of you can get it inside 15 feet with the putt. Is it better design for the kid?
No it's still just a badly designed green :)
-
I think this is a valid point, but it depends on what the course is trying to do. I have hit the 9th green at Tobacco Road from pretty far out and came away with two 3 putts, but you expect that going in. I was a member at Eagle Lodge in Philly and it had one or two greens where you were better off misisng the green in some spots that being on the green in the wrong spot. It also had a 440 yard uphill par 4 with a 3 level green. The odds on my getting on the correct level were nill. My overall feeling is you do not want ten or eleven holes like that on a course, but, every now and then, being asked to hit a shot on the proper side or level is a legitimate challenge, even on a longer hole. Just think how good it feels when you pull it off and make the putt. You earned it.
-
I wouldn't argue that many courses have their greens too fast ... undulating or not. Unfortunately, it's like talking to a wall to tell most of my clients or their superintendents how I feel. They insist that's what the members or paying guests want.
[/quote]
Tom if you give me their numbers i will call all of them for you! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Dean:
You learned that a 3 foot putt was the result of a good lag as a junior! Bingo. I have my answer. This begs the question that you could be taught that any arbitrary distance could be the result of a good lag, or that you could be taught that sometimes conditions conspire to change the parameters of a good lag.
I'd personally find it a bit freeing knowing that there really is no benefit to taking dead aim at the flag, and spend as few shots trying to get the ball within a 15 foot circle instead of within a 3 foot circle.
As for reasonable and fair, you said you don't expect the game to be fair, nor that your questions have anything to do with unfairness. However, your questions do have to do with what is reasonable and not...
So, what's the difference?
-
Kyle,
When I play a course that is really bad, whether just stupid hard or where the strategy is all mixed up, the emotion I feel is anger that someone got paid to design and build this crap when there are so many guys who can do great work and never get much of a chance. There is no reason for so much horrid golf in our country other then the fact that most don't know good from bad and now we're back where we started.
Tom, I wish my father in law played in his golf league at CD. I'd be finding excuses to visit a little more. As it is, you'd never confuse this course or this hole for anything at CD. The bunker in front just completes the picture. If its gonna be bad they might as make it as bad as possible, so they did.
Jim, my son's a lefty so he'd push his sand wedge 30 feet left, but he's been training at Wolf Point for the last 4 years so I like his chances of finding a way to beat Dean.
-
Dean:
You learned that a 3 foot putt was the result of a good lag as a junior! Bingo. I have my answer. This begs the question that you could be taught that any arbitrary distance could be the result of a good lag, or that you could be taught that sometimes conditions conspire to change the parameters of a good lag.
I'd personally find it a bit freeing knowing that there really is no benefit to taking dead aim at the flag, and spend as few shots trying to get the ball within a 15 foot circle instead of within a 3 foot circle.
As for reasonable and fair, you said you don't expect the game to be fair, nor that your questions have anything to do with unfairness. However, your questions do have to do with what is reasonable and not...
So, what's the difference?
I could care less the difference Kyle. That is not what the question in this thread is about. The three foot that we were taught as juniors was on long putts that you weren't trying to hole....we called it a dustbin lid - should I explain that also? I also do not remember as juniors having 15 ft second putts when you hit a great first putt....but that was before green speeds became a testament to how 'awesome' your course is and before architects felt the need to have vw's parked under the green surfaces to make courses harder! ps. did you ever actually answer the questions in my first post yet?
-
Can you tell me where the Masters committee sets a pin that a tour player who hits a perfect putt from 30 feet cannot stop the ball within 3 feet of the cup please. Maybe #16 back left/ maybe the front of #9 but I still think that can be done. My initial question is to do with pin positions where no matter how perfect the putt the ball cannot be stopped within 10-15 feet of the hole.
Dean:
I don't know Augusta well enough to argue this to death. I guess a lot of the argument would be over the definition of "cannot". We see many situations at The Masters each year where a great player doesn't get the putt within 5-10 feet ... hard to know for sure, but I would guess there are a few situations there where he still wouldn't get it within 3 feet if you gave him ten tries, which would be my definition of "can't."
I do know Crystal Downs well enough to argue the point. The last time I played it with Ben Crenshaw, we repeatedly tried a couple of putts where neither of us could get the ball to settle anywhere near the hole. Is that bad design? In one instance, the putt would have been makeable if the greens were 8 or 9 on the Stimpmeter instead of 12; on the other, I don't think we could have got it inside three feet even with a slower green, but we might not have kept putting it off the green and down the hill. :)
All that, of course, was after Ben saying on the way over there that he thought on most really great greens, there was a bit of fear of putting off the green.
P.S. to Don:
The hole you just described is pretty close to the 11th at Crystal Downs, except that the green is a bit bigger than that (and a lot more severe), and there's not a bunker right in front.
Tom, do you think the green you kept putting off the front of was a bad design or do you believe the greens are just too fast for the design? or neither?
-
I played a Jim Engh hole where I had to focus to avoid a 4 putt. I three putted it and was happy with myself.
I blame myself for leaving my approach shot that woefully out of position.
-
I played a Jim Engh hole where I had to focus to avoid a 4 putt. I three putted it and was happy with myself.
I blame myself for leaving my approach shot that woefully out of position.
so i would really despise that green!!! lol ;D
-
In reading this thread I keep thinking that you have to tell us how old the course is before you can answer if it is "good or bad architecture" because so many cool greens built by ODG's probably stimped at 6 to 8 when they were designed and are now running at 10-13, and they might be described as silly. The odd part is that many venerable old courses have this condition, and the membership seems to take perverse pride in how their greens play. No way you are getting the superintendent to dial back the green speed to re-capture pin positions or eliminate "goofy greens" or a series of impossible 2-putts.
If it is a relatively new course, I think the architect is more subject to criticism if the course has a steady diet of this. One or two holes like Dean describes is tolerable, IMO.
-
Dean:
You learned that a 3 foot putt was the result of a good lag as a junior! Bingo. I have my answer. This begs the question that you could be taught that any arbitrary distance could be the result of a good lag, or that you could be taught that sometimes conditions conspire to change the parameters of a good lag.
I'd personally find it a bit freeing knowing that there really is no benefit to taking dead aim at the flag, and spend as few shots trying to get the ball within a 15 foot circle instead of within a 3 foot circle.
As for reasonable and fair, you said you don't expect the game to be fair, nor that your questions have anything to do with unfairness. However, your questions do have to do with what is reasonable and not...
So, what's the difference?
I could care less the difference Kyle. That is not what the question in this thread is about. The three foot that we were taught as juniors was on long putts that you weren't trying to hole....we called it a dustbin lid - should I explain that also? I also do not remember as juniors having 15 ft second putts when you hit a great first putt....but that was before green speeds became a testament to how 'awesome' your course is and before architects felt the need to have vw's parked under the green surfaces to make courses harder! ps. did you ever actually answer the questions in my first post yet?
Dean,
You asked for any thoughts. Those are my thoughts. I am extremely interested in what thoughts and assumptions go into making up someone's opinion on a golf course. How else do you learn how to actually create a meaningful golf course instead of copying what is already consensus "good" or bad?"
You made a qualitative statement about putting that I simply cannot wrap my head around. I don't believe the word "should" can ever be spoken about a golf course other than in reference to the intent of the designer.
If the answer to the question as to why this is a bad situation is, "because that's what I was taught" that is fine and useful. But I doubt many design decisions are based on what golf instructors are teaching at the time. That seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse.
Say your instructor in junior golf taught you how to take what the golf course gave you and then gave you the physical tools to overcome those challenges... your opinion would be different, no?
-
well i think and firmly believe that if you hit a golf shot to 30 feet you 'should' be able to get that ball closer than 15 feet with a putt otherwise there is something not right with that green.... probably one of three things (bad design, too fast stimp, terrible hole location cut too close to the bottom of a slope). This is one I will argue all night except with you Kyle as I have just googled you and read your blog - I neither understand half of that or many of the questions you ask ;D I obviously don't think about this as much as you do or near as deeply but I have played competitive golf for 30 years now and only recently have noticed the new phenomenon of ultra fast greens with hillocks in them with badly cut holes and I don't think it makes for good golf or fun golf, both of which is why I am out there.
-
Tom, do you think the green you kept putting off the front of was a bad design or do you believe the greens are just too fast for the design? or neither?
Dean:
That was the 11th at Crystal Downs I was describing. I don't think it's a bad design, although it's quite severe. If you have hit the ball 30 feet above the hole on that green, you've made a stupid shot, and you deserve to three-putt or maybe putt off the green. [There is one line you can take to prevent putting off the green, but you'll probably be leaving yourself 10-20 feet from the hole depending on the hole location.]
The same contour that's impossible to putt down makes a good backstop if you've deliberately left your tee shot short of the green. However, when the pin is up on the back part of the green, you sometimes see a ball get too far up the slope, without making it to the crest, and then come motoring down PAST where the previous shot wound up. I think that's an example of the green being a bit too fast nowadays, though I could see where many would argue that the green itself is beyond the pale, and I'd be more likely to agree on those grounds.
One facet of this which we haven't mentioned is that 30 years of sand topdressing has built up many greens, and made the contours at the sides and fronts of the greens much more severe. It even screws up other parts of the green sometimes. We were trying to use the sideboard on the 7th at Crystal Downs to putt around the boomerang to the back hole location yesterday, and it wasn't working, and I realized that it doesn't work anymore because the green has been raised along that side, reducing the size of the bank that you used to swing the ball around.
-
Dean:
I am perfectly okay with all that. I don't intend to argue for the sake of arguing but instead to develop a conversation beyond simply anointing something as good or bad because of what ultimately are arbitrary actions. You've played tournament golf for a very long time. This very much interests me because you are playing the sport for the sake of competition. Clearly, you've learned and developed a method that works for you with that.
However, that further confuses me because to me, the competitive side would look to the problem of how to do I do this better than the rest of the field or my opponent as opposed to how do I apply what I've learned to this situation, and what if the situation doesn't fit what I learned. To me, a situation like this should push the competitive golfer to learn or acquire a different method of attacking the problem to gain the advantage.
I am also curious as to why the skilled golfer feels domain over the natural element of the golf course as opponent. To me, this would be like the best team in baseball or whichever sport asking their opponents to play to their strengths so they may demonstrate those strengths. The analog of the logical question is whether or not a defense should be allowed to impede a skilled quarterback from making a pass. Why is the golf course any different than a defense attempting to stop the opponent?
-
Tom, there is only one course I have ever played where I putted off the green more than once.....I believe the issue there (obviously not me), is that the designer , some 90 years ago did not forsee a contest between top notch clubs for the fastest greens in town award!!!! And now we get back to my original point....when it comes to putting off greens and not being able to get a first putt close to the hole (with a perfect putt), is there something wrong? I think there is.
-
well i think and firmly believe that if you hit a golf shot to 30 feet you 'should' be able to get that ball closer than 15 feet with a putt
Dean:
I wonder if you think that this applies to shots OFF the green as well ... that if you miss by 30 feet you ought to always be able to get the next shot closer than 15 feet?
If you say yes, then obviously you don't like water within 30 feet of the hole.
If you say no, that some hazards are allowed to be so severe that you can't get up and down ... then why can't some portion of the green offer the same problem?
-
well i think and firmly believe that if you hit a golf shot to 30 feet you 'should' be able to get that ball closer than 15 feet with a putt
Dean:
I wonder if you think that this applies to shots OFF the green as well ... that if you miss by 30 feet you ought to always be able to get the next shot closer than 15 feet?
If you say yes, then obviously you don't like water within 30 feet of the hole.
If you say no, that some hazards are allowed to be so severe that you can't get up and down ... then why can't some portion of the green offer the same problem?
Is the green a hazard?
-
well i think and firmly believe that if you hit a golf shot to 30 feet you 'should' be able to get that ball closer than 15 feet with a putt
Dean:
I wonder if you think that this applies to shots OFF the green as well ... that if you miss by 30 feet you ought to always be able to get the next shot closer than 15 feet?
If you say yes, then obviously you don't like water within 30 feet of the hole.
If you say no, that some hazards are allowed to be so severe that you can't get up and down ... then why can't some portion of the green offer the same problem?
Is the green a hazard?
By definition of the rules, no.
But the putting green is also not the hole - so there is still work to do.
-
well i think and firmly believe that if you hit a golf shot to 30 feet you 'should' be able to get that ball closer than 15 feet with a putt
Dean:
I wonder if you think that this applies to shots OFF the green as well ... that if you miss by 30 feet you ought to always be able to get the next shot closer than 15 feet?
If you say yes, then obviously you don't like water within 30 feet of the hole.
If you say no, that some hazards are allowed to be so severe that you can't get up and down ... then why can't some portion of the green offer the same problem?
Is the green a hazard?
The wrong portion?
can be.
How would your putt have been if you had been 30 feet short?
-
Dean:
I am perfectly okay with all that. I don't intend to argue for the sake of arguing but instead to develop a conversation beyond simply anointing something as good or bad because of what ultimately are arbitrary actions. You've played tournament golf for a very long time. This very much interests me because you are playing the sport for the sake of competition. Clearly, you've learned and developed a method that works for you with that.
However, that further confuses me because to me, the competitive side would look to the problem of how to do I do this better than the rest of the field or my opponent as opposed to how do I apply what I've learned to this situation, and what if the situation doesn't fit what I learned. To me, a situation like this should push the competitive golfer to learn or acquire a different method of attacking the problem to gain the advantage.
I am also curious as to why the skilled golfer feels domain over the natural element of the golf course as opponent. To me, this would be like the best team in baseball or whichever sport asking their opponents to play to their strengths so they may demonstrate those strengths. The analog of the logical question is whether or not a defense should be allowed to impede a skilled quarterback from making a pass. Why is the golf course any different than a defense attempting to stop the opponent?
Kyle, I can quite honestly say that in tournament golf over the past 30 years, where pins are carefully thought out, I cannot remember ever deliberately trying to miss a green (having played practise rounds and understanding the green complexes), in order to be able to get down in two. I also cannot remember off the top of my head having a putt in a tournament where I could not lag it close with a good first putt. The experiences i've had have been at resorts or at private clubs on first time plays where you do not know the greens.....
-
well i think and firmly believe that if you hit a golf shot to 30 feet you 'should' be able to get that ball closer than 15 feet with a putt
Dean:
I wonder if you think that this applies to shots OFF the green as well ... that if you miss by 30 feet you ought to always be able to get the next shot closer than 15 feet?
If you say yes, then obviously you don't like water within 30 feet of the hole.
If you say no, that some hazards are allowed to be so severe that you can't get up and down ... then why can't some portion of the green offer the same problem?
Is the green a hazard?
The wrong portion?
can be.
How would your putt have been if you had been 30 feet short?
it would have been in the front pot bunker. Not much better to be honest ;)
-
Dean:
I am perfectly okay with all that. I don't intend to argue for the sake of arguing but instead to develop a conversation beyond simply anointing something as good or bad because of what ultimately are arbitrary actions. You've played tournament golf for a very long time. This very much interests me because you are playing the sport for the sake of competition. Clearly, you've learned and developed a method that works for you with that.
However, that further confuses me because to me, the competitive side would look to the problem of how to do I do this better than the rest of the field or my opponent as opposed to how do I apply what I've learned to this situation, and what if the situation doesn't fit what I learned. To me, a situation like this should push the competitive golfer to learn or acquire a different method of attacking the problem to gain the advantage.
I am also curious as to why the skilled golfer feels domain over the natural element of the golf course as opponent. To me, this would be like the best team in baseball or whichever sport asking their opponents to play to their strengths so they may demonstrate those strengths. The analog of the logical question is whether or not a defense should be allowed to impede a skilled quarterback from making a pass. Why is the golf course any different than a defense attempting to stop the opponent?
Kyle, I can quite honestly say that in tournament golf over the past 30 years, where pins are carefully thought out, I cannot remember ever deliberately trying to miss a green (having played practise rounds and understanding the green complexes), in order to be able to get down in two. I also cannot remember off the top of my head having a putt in a tournament where I could not lag it close with a good first putt. The experiences i've had have been at resorts or at private clubs on first time plays where you do not know the greens.....
There are a handful of front hole locations at Huntingdon Valley that are significantly more attackable from just off the front of the putting green than from the center of the putting green. I think this is the case with the front of the first, fourth, sixth, eighth, tenth, twelfth, and sixteenth.
Does this data for you force the conclusion that those front hole locations are not carefully thought out?
-
ps. you guys are doing a lot of talking about putting the ball right where you want it.....are you that good all of you?
-
Dean:
I am perfectly okay with all that. I don't intend to argue for the sake of arguing but instead to develop a conversation beyond simply anointing something as good or bad because of what ultimately are arbitrary actions. You've played tournament golf for a very long time. This very much interests me because you are playing the sport for the sake of competition. Clearly, you've learned and developed a method that works for you with that.
However, that further confuses me because to me, the competitive side would look to the problem of how to do I do this better than the rest of the field or my opponent as opposed to how do I apply what I've learned to this situation, and what if the situation doesn't fit what I learned. To me, a situation like this should push the competitive golfer to learn or acquire a different method of attacking the problem to gain the advantage.
I am also curious as to why the skilled golfer feels domain over the natural element of the golf course as opponent. To me, this would be like the best team in baseball or whichever sport asking their opponents to play to their strengths so they may demonstrate those strengths. The analog of the logical question is whether or not a defense should be allowed to impede a skilled quarterback from making a pass. Why is the golf course any different than a defense attempting to stop the opponent?
Kyle, I can quite honestly say that in tournament golf over the past 30 years, where pins are carefully thought out, I cannot remember ever deliberately trying to miss a green (having played practise rounds and understanding the green complexes), in order to be able to get down in two. I also cannot remember off the top of my head having a putt in a tournament where I could not lag it close with a good first putt. The experiences i've had have been at resorts or at private clubs on first time plays where you do not know the greens.....
There are a handful of front hole locations at Huntingdon Valley that are significantly more attackable from just off the front of the putting green than from the center of the putting green. I think this is the case with the front of the first, fourth, sixth, eighth, tenth, twelfth, and sixteenth.
Does this data for you force the conclusion that those front hole locations are not carefully thought out?
and once you know that course you will play for the front edge of those greens. If however you fly the ball a little further and end up 20 ft behind the flag should you be penalized by then putting off the front of the green? My point again is that the green is either badly designed or the greens are too fast for the slopes on them. Something you are yet to address.
-
Dean:
I have addressed both with the notion of "should" as it pertains to anything other than the intent of the designer. Is there a point where the green gets too fast in my opinion? Sure. But those reasons are mainly argonomic in nature. I rarely can entertain the idea that excessive green speeds are good agronomic practice. I have seen cases on dormant turf where it becomes nigh on impossible to reasonably slow the putting surface down. Will I adjust a hole to a location where the skill demand isn't so high? Sure will... but there is little qualitative measure in that, IMO.
-
Remember the Open at Shinnecock? A prime example of what I am talking about, the par 3 that caused embarrasment to the best players in the world and the USGA......is that hole badly designed? No. Was the green too fast? Yes. If the pin was in a different position would either of the former mattered? No. But I suppose the best in the world could have placed the ball in a location where they had a 20 footer uphill couldn't they? ;D
-
Dean,
For some historical perspective on your basic premise, I am reminded of some of my all time fave quotes from Colt, who said most of the greens outght to be cuppable, and in no case shall a putt "run from the putter like a swine possessed by the devil" i.e. not be controllable with a good stroke.
My reading of most of the architectural classics is that few gca's of the golden era were designing philosophically to create a putt that couldn't be gotten close or made, if struck well. But, with slower greens, that general sense of fairness and design to reward skill was doable at up to 10%, then reduced about 1% per decade to well under 2% now.
The idea that most greens should be really wild is as much gca.com nostalgia, and in many cases better sound bite than sound practice, but sound bites are what pass for wisdom these days in media, on the internet, wherever, conversations or statements are made!
Whoever mentioned its not black and white has my vote, however. I have no problem with a few greens on any course I design or play having some unusual putts. I have always felt that at some point, it goes over the top and becomes goofy golf. As I think TD has pointed out on various similar threads, that threshold may vary considerably from 0 to 18. My sense from asking the question to legions of golfers over the years that the over/under on wild greens is probably likely to sit at around 4 for 18 holes.
And philosophically, I have alway said that a gently rolling green is most proportional and makes a 10 foot putt about half as hard (or statistically makeable) as a 20 foot putt. However, if you put a shelf, knob, or whatever in the green, its possible to have shots of a few inches different location treated way differently from bouncing a foot from the hole to careeming off the green. In general, it does happen, and we cannot eliminate it, but I doubt too many players think we should actually design for it!
And, I wonder why the discussion goes back to the pros? As some have pointed out, why design a muni as a challenge for the pro? No tournaments will ever come. The challenges can and should be no more than 75-90% of what the pros face to make the "course experience" anywhere close to the same for average golfers.
It will also be interesting to see if the modern movement by some gca's to increase contours (and some of my greens fit this category!) will be met with the same fate as older greens that no longer have 10 pin positions, and numerous 3 and 4 putts on a daily basis. I predict they will, at least at the courses that haven't been named in the top 50. Those top courses will survive longer on reputation and preserving the design, but for all the lesser courses that strove to be a once in a lifetime golf experience, but fell short, and now rely on everyday play for business, if the greens stuggle or need to be rebuilt, they will be rebuilt differently and most likely, flatter.
As always, just MHO.
-
Jeff, interesting. Thank you.