[Tom_Doak]

There's a thread up about "difficult greens" based on a post of mine, and I don't like the way the question has been framed there, so I'm going to try it myself here.

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

To me the problem is that most architects today are afraid to build difficult greens, because they might become silly if the green speeds are too high -- and thus they miss out on ever building great greens.  That was really the point of my statement regarding Crystal Downs; becoming intimately familiar with it made me unafraid of designing greens with contour.


I did not say there is no room for subtle greens; that would be a complete misrepresentation of my opinion. 


However, when you get to the really great courses of the world, where are all the boring greens?  A quick checklist:


Pine Valley - greens at least a 9 on the difficulty meter
Augusta - the very definition of a 10
Merion - 8 or 9
Shinnecock - 6 or 7 for member play, 10+ in the last Open
Cypress Point - 7 or 8 for greens severity, luckily they keep them slow
Royal Melbourne - 7 or 8
Ballybunion - 4 or 5 for the putting; 10 for approaching the greens
The Old Course - 8


Which ones did I miss?  Oakmont?  Oakland Hills?  Winged Foot?  Dornoch?  Sand Hills?  Pinehurst No. 2?  Of the lot, only Dornoch has flattish greens, offset by the fact that many of them are extremely difficult to hit with an approach shot.


I agree with Jeff Warne's point that golf courses do not have to be difficult to be great.  Funny though that his example was the 18th at St. Andrews ... I would call that 18th green pretty difficult, with the Valley of Sin and all.  North Berwick is the best example of an "easy" great course, but it's hardly without difficult situations: for example, the approach to 17, or the green surfaces on 16 or 15  !!  It doesn't do it for every hole, but in the end North Berwick is "easier" because it's shorter, not because its greens are flatter.


There is room in golf for all sorts of greens, at least for golfers who don't have closed minds.  For example, I generally agree with Joe Hancock's idea that greens contours should be bold and broad enough for the player to make decisions over, but one of the best sets of greens I saw last year was at Morfontaine, which has a ton of small ripples in many greens, unlike anything else I could think of.  It's the "unlike anything else I could think of" which made them special.  Meanwhile, the same architect [Tom Simpson, who provided the best quotes against making greens too severe] built five of the most severe greens I have EVER seen on the nine-hole Valliere course right next door to Morfontaine!  Designers who have strict rules about what greens should be like are incapable of creating cool ones like those.

[Peter Pallotta]

Great thread title/subject line, and chock-full of sound analysis and advice.

Of course, unless I've been reading the subtex wrong over the years, any slowdown in new course construction means -- and has always meant -- exactly the opposite, ie architects designing out of fear and relying on approaches that have already proven to be (financially) successful.

Similarly, I think, has been the 'renovation as restoration' craze, based on the safety and lack of risk/fear in highlighting the name of the original golden age architect regardless of the inherent quality/greatness of the course, either before or after

[Mark Pearce]

Tom,


Can I suggest that Muirfield, which I think you agree is a great course, has a relatively flat set of greens?  Not boring by any means but not dramatic and not overly difficult.  As with so many of these discussions, isn't it the case that there is an entire spectrum that can still encompass greatness?  I haven't played a huge number of modern courses but the better ones I have played (including Barnbougle Dunes, St Andrews Beach and Renaissance club of yours, Lost Farm, Austin GC, Kingsbarns and Close House Colt certainly don't suggest architects scared of bold contours!

[Thomas Dai]

Tom,
Apologies if I framed the initail thread question poorly. I have cross-linked the other thread so your more detailed thoughts as above can be easily accessed.
Fascinating subject - and of course 'flat' greens/putting surfaces can sometimes be right buggers to putt on - what seems flat/level to the eye may not actually be so, subtlety and all that. I sense a new thread topic!
Atb


See here for reverse of cross-linked thread - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,64005.0.html

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,


Can I suggest that Muirfield, which I think you agree is a great course, has a relatively flat set of greens?  Not boring by any means but not dramatic and not overly difficult.  As with so many of these discussions, isn't it the case that there is an entire spectrum that can still encompass greatness?  I haven't played a huge number of modern courses but the better ones I have played (including Barnbougle Dunes, St Andrews Beach and Renaissance club of yours, Lost Farm, Austin GC, Kingsbarns and Close House Colt certainly don't suggest architects scared of bold contours!

Mark:


Indeed, Muirfield has the flattest greens of any course which I rated a 10 in The Confidential Guide.  It's also the most difficult from tee to green of any of the courses in that group, so I think it's partly a matter of balance ... if you've got a long course with 150 nasty bunkers, severe greens would be overkill.


There are also at least a couple of other architects who are unafraid to build difficult greens.  [One of them is acknowledged as the best putter of his generation, so he doesn't have to answer as many questions about the propriety of it as I do.] 


That said, the modern era has produced many more "7500 yard courses with 150 bunkers" that are not great, than "courses with great and difficult greens" that are not great.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
Apologies if I framed the initial thread question poorly.

Thomas:  I didn't mean to imply it was your fault.  It was my quote from last night about the greens at Crystal Downs that framed the question poorly.  I've gone back and made an editor's note there, to try and clarify my intent.

[Tim Martin]

Tom-I'm wondering how often on return visits to courses you've designed you find the green speeds to be excessive so as to negate the original intent? I would imagine that certain lines of communication would be more well received depending on the club and its "vision".

[Tom_Doak]

Tom-I'm wondering how often on return visits to courses you've designed you find the green speeds to be excessive so as to negate the original intent? I would imagine that certain lines of communication would be more well received depending on the club and its "vision".

Tim:


It's not all the time, but it certainly happens.  Sebonack and Lost Dunes keep their greens consistently faster than what we talked about originally.  So do Stonewall and Stone Eagle, but they aren't as fast as the first two. 


They're all still playable, but for my tastes they are more difficult than they need to be.  However, I long ago realized that green speeds are the prerogative of my clients, not my own.  Apparently they must not think the greens are too severe, though, if they choose to maintain them so fast!

[Tim Gallant]

Interesting to read.


My thoughts: We all applaud half-par holes, and if, for example, you reach a long par-4 that is playing into the wind, you play it like a 5. However, when it comes to greens, we just naturally assume we should be able to get down in two from anywhere. Holes like the 6th at Eastward Ho! dictate that when the green is firm and relatively quick (but not unplayable), that you sometimes need to play away from the pin to ensure the ball doesn't roll off the front of the green. If you miss in that spot, it should be about getting down in 3, where two is a bonus (i.e. you sink a 20 footer). I'm ok with that and in fact, I quite like that. Then I start to understand that challenging certain hole locations, or missing in the wrong spot can lead to a +1 on my score. From there, I am thinking backwards about how I can minimise the risk on my approach while reaping the greatest reward.
[/size]

[Thomas Dai]

Tim makes a very good point here, the standard expectation is always to 1 or at worst 2 putt whereas in reality a 3-putt can sometimes be an acceptable result.


I have an acquaintance who is a bookie. We were standing at the side of a green one day and he quoted me the odds on a particular player, a low hcpper, 2-putting from a certain spot. His quoted odds indicated that a 3-putt was more likely than a 2-putt....and when the player in question had finished putting out the bookie was proved dead right.


Atb

[Eric LeFante]

If the problem is architects are not building interesting enough greens, how much of that is attributable to:


- cost and time to build heavily contoured greens vs subtle greens
- cost and time to maintain heavily contoured greens vs subtle greens
- reducing the difficulty of the golf course by building subtle greens vs heavily contoured greens
- reducing the time it takes to play golf courses with subtle greens vs heavily contoured greens


Is the problem that only a handful of architects have the opportunity to build the greens they want vs the ones they are being paid to build (reduce cost and get golfers around fast)?

[Peter Pallotta]

Being the greatest putter of your generation during a real estate driven golf boom does have its advantages...

[Brett Hochstein]

Some great points made here. 


1. It isn't just the greens themselves internally that provide difficulty, it's approaching them that also factors in.  This is mostly the case on links courses, where the approaches and surrounds react nearly the same as greens.  I've noticed this in my year-in-review posts, where I do different rankings on courses I've studied that year.  Despite getting a share of my overall number 1 spot, Rye only finished just outside the top ten for best greens, which I rate with a higher weight toward internal contour and relation to play.  Approaching them is difficult and fantastic, though, and not dissimilar at all from Ballybunion, which I thought of a few times while playing Rye, especially at the holes along the dune ridge of the front nine.


2. Tim is dead on about half par holes really not being about yardage.  They can be about green design too, both from a contour perspective and angle of approach perspective.  Hitting the green on the 5th at Old MacDonald, especially in the wrong spot, is no guarantee of a 3.  Missing left of the fairway on the short 5th at Crystal Downs (which I am 2 for 2 on) is absolutely no guarantee that you can hit and hold the green. (It's probably a guarantee you can't hit the green, actually.)  The mindset that you should always be able to hit a green in regulation and two putt is incredibly limiting and boring.


3.

Designers who have strict rules about what greens should be like are incapable of creating cool ones like those.

  I've always believed there should be no hard "rules" of design.  Guidelines and principles, yes.  The best designers though are the ones who are able to go outside the norm, either boldly or subtly, and sensibly create something great and unique.  A lot of the Golden Age guys were great at this, and some modern designers and builders have this instinct too. 

[Mike Bodo]

That said, the modern era has produced many more "7500 yard courses with 150 bunkers" that are not great, than "courses with great and difficult greens" that are not great.

Spot On! 

[Jeff_Brauer]

That said, the modern era has produced many more "7500 yard courses with 150 bunkers" that are not great, than "courses with great and difficult greens" that are not great.

Spot On! 

I would actually be interested in a true survey of just how many of out 15,000 US courses meet that criteria, or even how many of the 5,000 built in the true modern era actually are like that.


I doubt the percentage is really very high.  The only architect I can think of that approaches 150 bunkers per design is Steve Smyers, and Gary Kern once (at Purgatory).  Granted, some Florida courses have gotten acres of waste bunkers to save turf and irrigation, and maybe they count as 5-6 each in some minds.


As to the original OP, well, maybe I do design from a sense of fear or responsibility.  As Eric L says, maybe we have enough of the great courses, but need more average ones, at least for everyday play. 


I think one of my first posts here alluded to this.  I love talking great architecture, and I love the occasional chance to really strive for it.  Most of my clients don't.....they want function, playability, etc., and from what I see, most retail golfers do, too!


Sorry to interrupt the discussion......carry on!

[Joe Zucker]

Jeff's last point rings true to me.  Most golf is on average courses and that is the goal.  People want to pay $50, not lose too many balls, and play in 4.5 hours.

With that out of the way, in an ideal world, should more new courses fail/flop when open?  I completely understand why owners want to go with something that is relatively safe and has a high chance of being successful.  A culture that is more accepting of failure may get more innovative designs (ignoring the money side for a minute).  If all of the new courses are great, then the boundaries are probably not being pushed far enough. 

Some time last year, Forest Richardson (I think?) proposed a hole where the green was so steeply angled away from the tee, that the approach would actually be played directly back to the tee.  This hole might be awful if it were built, but it might be awesome.  The fear to not build this hole or something equivalently different is completely justifiable, but more risk would probably leave us with more fun and interesting holes as well.

I don't really think there is a solution to this problem because courses are expensive to build and relatively permanent when constructed.  If flops were easier to handle financially and for reputations, I think new courses would be more different from one another (perhaps getting at the debate that new moderns have a similar look).  The Loop is a deviation from the status quo and one that looks like it will succeed.  Hopefully this gives owners more confidence to let architects take bigger risks.

[Rob Marshall]

The greens on Oak Hill East aren't flat by any means but there aren't are lot of undulations. Just front to back type pitch. No matter what speed they are running at I think they play fair.


As a player, for me there is nothing worse than playing a course with very severe greens that are running at a high stimp.

[Mike_Young]

I've never been afraid to build a difficult green but TD you got to realize you building one and me building one are two different things.  Where you might be able to have the owner's ear for a longer period than the regional archie, it is not always the case for all of us.  And once the supt is there the supt can go against those greens quickly if the owner cannot argue. If the supt is not in your corner then you are doomed.  He is there everyday and if you are not a signature then most have zero problem making you the fall guy even when the owner was there and asking for it.  And once it has to be changed then it is "bad" design whereas a signature seems to be able to have greens rebuilt around here every five-10 years.   Also, "USGA construction" is difficult in severe greens. 

Another thing is that most American golfers feel entitled to the "two putt par" and thus we continue to lengthen courses as you say.

My other thought regarding building such greens is that the relationship to the approach is critical and therefore some golfer who never approaches from the ideal fairway location never sees the green as playable and defines it unplayable.  Oh well....

[Ron Kern]

I would actually be interested in a true survey of just how many of out 15,000 US courses meet that criteria, or even how many of the 5,000 built in the true modern era actually are like that.

I doubt the percentage is really very high.  The only architect I can think of that approaches 150 bunkers per design is Steve Smyers, and Gary Kern once (at Purgatory).

To be clear, Purgatory GC is my design, not my father's. There are 135 bunkers worked into the landscape that I created on an essentially flat piece of ground.  And, the golf course features a terrific set of greens, too.

[Andy Johnson]

There's a thread up about "difficult greens" based on a post of mine, and I don't like the way the question has been framed there, so I'm going to try it myself here.

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

To me the problem is that most architects today are afraid to build difficult greens, because they might become silly if the green speeds are too high -- and thus they miss out on ever building great greens.  That was really the point of my statement regarding Crystal Downs; becoming intimately familiar with it made me unafraid of designing greens with contour.


I did not say there is no room for subtle greens; that would be a complete misrepresentation of my opinion. 


However, when you get to the really great courses of the world, where are all the boring greens?  A quick checklist:


Pine Valley - greens at least a 9 on the difficulty meter
Augusta - the very definition of a 10
Merion - 8 or 9
Shinnecock - 6 or 7 for member play, 10+ in the last Open
Cypress Point - 7 or 8 for greens severity, luckily they keep them slow
Royal Melbourne - 7 or 8
Ballybunion - 4 or 5 for the putting; 10 for approaching the greens
The Old Course - 8


Which ones did I miss?  Oakmont?  Oakland Hills?  Winged Foot?  Dornoch?  Sand Hills?  Pinehurst No. 2?  Of the lot, only Dornoch has flattish greens, offset by the fact that many of them are extremely difficult to hit with an approach shot.


I agree with Jeff Warne's point that golf courses do not have to be difficult to be great.  Funny though that his example was the 18th at St. Andrews ... I would call that 18th green pretty difficult, with the Valley of Sin and all.  North Berwick is the best example of an "easy" great course, but it's hardly without difficult situations: for example, the approach to 17, or the green surfaces on 16 or 15  !!  It doesn't do it for every hole, but in the end North Berwick is "easier" because it's shorter, not because its greens are flatter.


There is room in golf for all sorts of greens, at least for golfers who don't have closed minds.  For example, I generally agree with Joe Hancock's idea that greens contours should be bold and broad enough for the player to make decisions over, but one of the best sets of greens I saw last year was at Morfontaine, which has a ton of small ripples in many greens, unlike anything else I could think of.  It's the "unlike anything else I could think of" which made them special.  Meanwhile, the same architect [Tom Simpson, who provided the best quotes against making greens too severe] built five of the most severe greens I have EVER seen on the nine-hole Valliere course right next door to Morfontaine!  Designers who have strict rules about what greens should be like are incapable of creating cool ones like those.

A question a friend once posed to me is name a great golf hole that doesn't have a great green?


Quickly you realize the answer is very very few.

[Tom_Doak]

I think there's another kind of difficult green. I'll call it "high-subtlety" greens.  I don't think this is your thing, at least from what I've seen.  But they can be just as difficult if not more so.  And they can drive you insane. The 8 footer you'd swear goes an inch left but goes 2 to the right. The putt that looks uphill but is somehow downhill.  The putt you'd swear breaks it is desd straight.  And you putt it from an inch and a half to the left and it breaks like crazy.  You know what I'm talking about.

My question is simple:  can that even be done on purpose by an architect?  Or are they more a simple function or random natural happenstance that just can't be created by man?

I've got a book by a Japanese architect [Shunsuke Kato] where he describes doing that on purpose on a tournament course in Japan.  He said he built the first two greens so you would over-read the break, and then you get to the third and it breaks MORE than you think, so after that, you will have doubt in your mind the rest of the way.  [I wonder how he gets you to putt from exactly where he wants, but, whatever.] 


He's the only one I know of who claims to actually try to do it.  I've had it happen occasionally, on accident ... the shaper would build a green thinking he had a portion draining one way, but when we put a transit on it to check, it wasn't doing anything like what it looked.  One I remember vividly is the 16th green at Stonewall -- Gil Hanse and I could not believe where some of the break points were, but eventually I said, it's all draining, right?, and we called it good.  The more recent one is the 3rd on the Red course [or 15th Black] at The Loop, where there is a depression feeding out to one side of the green, but it's not nearly as steep going that way as it appears to be.  When we did the Hundred Hole Hike there for the opening, everyone just kept missing putts on that green, and I had a little chuckle about it.

[Sean_A]

I always have a devil of a time putting at Little Aston.  The greens are incredibly subtle and very difficult to read.  So, yes, I agree with David.  That said, ya don't want 18 of these greens and that is pretty much what Little Aston...not ideal. 

One course I do think has great greens is Beau Desert. I don't recall ever putting well there or seeing anybody else putt well there. Of course, the subsidence in some of the greens is a huge reason for this. Some putts just don't break like they look as though they should. 

I actually think its easier to putt on contoured greens once learned because the breaks can be seen...we are given a road map as it were. I always struggle more with slope than contour because slope is harder to read...especially on hilly courses. 

TOC is always cited for great greens, but I don't think there are any which are overly-demanding.  Size is the biggest defence, but that is mitigated by good approaching which is helped by good drive placement.  Lots of hole locations look easier to access than they really are.  If we learn to play away from flags when not in good position than 2 putting shouldn't be that hard. 

Ciao

[Sam Krume]

Any green that befuddles you, IMO is doing its job, whether bold or subtle, man made or natural. I would nominate Epsom as having a set of greens that do everything you could wish for.

[Ian Andrew]

1. cost and time to build heavily contoured greens vs subtle greens
2. cost and time to maintain heavily contoured greens vs subtle greens

1. There is no difference in time to build
2. Bunker (and lots of them) tight to the green would be a bigger problem

3. reducing the difficulty of the golf course by building subtle greens vs heavily contoured greens
4. reducing the time it takes to play golf courses with subtle greens vs heavily contoured greens

3. Take out bunkers around contoured greens and you balance out the difficulty
4. Less fairway bunkers, less long rough, less tree canopy can all balance that out for time

5. Is the problem that only a handful of architects have the opportunity to build the greens they want vs the ones they are being paid to build (reduce cost and get golfers around fast)?

5. No, this like everything else is a choice, I find most can't give up their bunkering, and so the greens are the place they compromise

[Ian Andrew]

Last time I played Pinehurst #2, it took three hours and I didn't lose a ball.
I always saw Pinehurst #2 as the poster child for interesting public golf - just keep the greens at 9!


I based a course north of Toronto called Ballantrae G&CC on it.
It's got wild greens, but plenty of width, lots of short grass around greens for recovery and only 40 bunkers...


Strong greens are an architectural choice.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()