[Mark_F]

Purely from an educationally broadening perspective, why is it that we can sometimes mockingly refer to greens as looking like they have dead elephants buried beneath them, yet others are lauded as being brilliantly contoured?

To wit, some of the greens on courses profiled here on GCA appear to have been seeded over two camels humping, never mind a pachyderm's graveyard.

Why are they so good?

How fine a line is there between brilliant and laughable? (Forgetting for the moment sadistic greenkeepers).

[TEPaul]

Mark F:

Extremely contoured greens have almost nothing to do with the contours or what they are--they have almost everything to do with who did them!

Seriously though, if very severe greens reward very well thoughtout and well executed shots, they're great! If they don't or can't do that, they're ridiculous.

Unfair is not a word we use on this website, unless we happen to be quoting Pat Mucci.

[A_Clay_Man]

MarkF- I never saw the original greens at Poppy Hills but as I understand it the pros whined so loudly that they were scalped. I now play on a course with great undulations which form sections to the greens and makes pinning the essence of strategy. The major difference between the greens at Poppy and those here at Pinon are the angles at which the green sits. Just off the top of my head the greens at Poppy almost always seem to be perpendicular to you the golfer. Where at Pinon the variations of the greens angle, to the golfer, make for a more thought provoking Tee, second or third shot. As for putting them the greens here at pinon look daunting and if you have a bad speed day, they are. But the truth is as long as you can calculate the backside of the swale's influence, they are not that difficult.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark F,

TEPaul would have you believe that the key is, "who" designed them.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

Authorship and experience haVE nothing to do with it,
the answer lies within the individual mind of the designer.
Just ask Crump and Fownes, if you can reach them.

But the answer to your thread question is one simple word.

SPEED.

[THuckaby2]

Though I may get tarred and feathered for saying this:

Patrick Mucci is right.

It's all about speed.

Given proper speeds, greens can have any sort of contour and the more outlandish, the more interest they can provide.

Given too great speeds, the same greens become absurd, the home of infinite putting, which to me just isn't golf.

I've harped on this many times also, but this is proven oh so very well at Pasatiempo.  It was particularly eye-opening to me to play the course last Saturday, after three weeks of nearly constant rain, and find the greens not soft at all, not slow at all, but just a wee bit "less" firm and fast then their normal fire... and find them only in this current state to be "right".  In fact I'd go so far as to say they were perfect.  Unpinnable spots became doable... Mackenzie's devilish genius was there for all to experience.

Alas and alack, the rains will stop, and by the spring this will all be gone.  Or perhaps will a lesson be learned there?

TH

[Bullthistle]

I would like to pose another angle...when does a green become unfair in terms of receiving a shot?

What is a well struck shot? If your well struck shot hits the center of the green and bounces off? What is the difference between firm and hard??  how about that nasty word "lush'???

BT

[Tim Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I also agree. It is mostly about speed.

Bullthistle:

Who says landing the ball in the middle of the green is the correct shot? You may be 30-40 yards off the mark

[Bullthistle]

Tim Weiman
I understand, but the greens I play average 3500sq ft!

BT.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

You misunderstood me again. What I said was it depends on who designed them.

Let me put it this way; If Coore and Crenshaw designed them it makes no damn difference how SEVERE they are--there can be no conceivable way they can be unfair or ridiculous no matter what! How could they be if Ben and Bill did them?

[ed_getka]

Rock hard greens that can't be held, but the surrounds are so soft that a shot can't be bounced in.

Any green that you can't get within 20 feet of the hole regardless of what kind of shot you play, I would say is unfair.

On the other hand there are greens at Rustic Canyon that can be 5-putted that I wouldn't say are unfair, because all of those putts are generally the result of a poor choice of approach shots that don't fit the requirements of the hole.

[Tom Doak]

It's the speed.

Crystal Downs used to be my favorite golf course in the world, but now it's slipping on my list.  They've removed most of the stupid trees from two decades ago, they haven't added any stupid tees, and nearly everyone would say the course is in better shape than it ever has been.  But the greens are just too fast to make any sense now; that's the only difference that matters.

Adam, if Pinon Hills' greens were at 10 1/2, the angle of play wouldn't matter a bit.  (And you must hit a lot of greens ... because from the sides and the back those greens are murder even when they're not so fast!)

Even so, I love dead elephants and humping camels.  The only greens contouring I don't like are the really artificial multiple tiers I see on some modern courses ... Poppy Hills being one of them.  For some reason, that looks much more contrived to me than any sort of mounding is.

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom Doak- We do get them up there once a year. Alan double cuts and rolls them for Halloween, then puts the pins in ridiculous spots, and they call it monster day. Perhaps you could use that info to show some client what's wrong with too fast. Lord knows any putt that goes in is the definition of perfect.

[Lynn Shackelford]

I would add to speed, location of the holes.  I have played Rustic Canyon often.  Sometimes, after our group has holed out, we all try a spot where someone 3 putted.  On occasion no one can get the putt close to the hole.  As long as this only occurs occasionally, I am not troubled.  However a cup cutter after a bad night could make for a an unpleasant round for many on highly sloped and fast greens.  Or in an effort to spread wear and tear, holes are placed in unintended areas to the designer's plan.  Again, if it is on occasion I find it okay, it's "rub of the green", but I would limit it to 3 holes a day.

[TEPaul]

Lynn:

How do you feel about the architectural concept of "greens within a green"?

My definition of "greens within a green" would be greens that are contoured in such a way that if you happen to be in the wrong section of a green you're ability to two putt is probably very limited (without sinking a fairly lengthy second putt). In other words it may be virtually impossible to get the first putt close.

When a course like NGLA's greens are at some decent speed this is without question a feature of some of the greens that's undeniable--exactly how many I'm not certain but certainly a few.

I recognize that this architectural feature ("greens within a green") is not for all golfers but in some cases on some courses I feel it's a highly strategic feature--and I really do mean that--hightly strategic. On some courses I've seen in tournament setups (like Seminole) it's almost wiser to try to come up a bit short of the green and chip or putt uphill instead of risking putting downhill from much closer range. And then of course Pine Valley certainly has some greens where getting a first putt close is extremely tricky if not virtually impossible from some areas to some cups. Maybe I'm wrong about it being impossible at PV but it certainly can be extremely intense and possibly requiring great imagination.

Do you think this kind of thing is acceptable Lynn, or do you think it's over the top architecture?

[Lynn Shackelford]

TE Paul
A green within a green can work in certain situations.  I would hope that the golfer on the tee knows where the hole is (on which green within a green) and that the design dictates that he play in a way to the green to give him that advantage.  However having said that, I don't like the idea that in some instances a golfer will have a distinct advantage by intentionally missing the green because chipping is better than putting.  I would like to think that golfers will have the goal of reaching the green because it is advantageous to do so.

[Mark_F]

TE Paul and Lynn Shackelford,

Balance would seem to be the criteria?  If the green within a green appears, say, half a dozen or more times per round it's getting a little funky?

Tom Doak and Patrick Mucci,

Speed it is!

Thanks.

I asked the question because I read a review of Doonbeg in Aust. Golf Digest a little while back, and it mentioned that it had a few wild greens to soften, and I wasn't sure if a new course could get greens that fast so soon.  Can they?

Also, the same review mentioned Ballybunion New as having several satanically contoured greens as well.  

Also again, in the Confidential Guide, Tom Doak wrote of the National Golf Club (Australia) Old Course that "the sharp ridges which run through many of the greens are too spectacular for even modest putting speeds".  

Does this mean they would be acceptable if they were slower, or would they still be ridiculous, just a little less so?  I seem to remember Mike Clayton writing in the same vein about the National's greens, stating that it would be a much better course if some of the greens were flattened (My apologies to Mike if i have paraphrased incorrectly).

[Tom Doak]

I was at Doonbeg before it opened, so I didn't play.  I can't imagine the greens were that fast, but it still had several which were so severely contoured that they looked ridiculous ... the fifth green is huge, but I think there are only about two places to put the hole.

I'm not a fan of Ballybunion New either ... it's torture for me ... but mostly because the greens are so small.  The contours really aren't that extreme, but if you're more than ten feet from the hole you'll probably have to putt over something.

The greens at The National (the original course) are very severe, most of them divided laterally into two or three sections by steep ridges ... the kind of thing where you have to risk not getting over the ridge and missing by 50 feet, or being resigned to going way past the hole once you do get over the ridge.  They're "greens within a green," as Tom P. says -- extremely narrow ones!  I'm a really good putter, but the last time I played them, they were too much for me.

I'll go back to Lynn Shackelford's comment about Rustic Canyon (which I haven't seen).  I don't think every green should be built so that you can always get it close from anywhere ... that's "fairness" at the expense of strategy.  But I don't think you ought to find very many situations where you can't get a putt within six or seven feet if you hit a really good putt, and give yourself a chance to two-putt.

My most famous green for three-whacks is the fourth at Lost Dunes (a short par 5 where a lot of people have made two-up and three-in pars).  But even there, in most cases it's possible to get the first putt close.  If the pin is back left upper tier, and you're on the front of the green, that's the worst case -- you have to choose between risking not getting up the tier, or deliberately putting it ten feet past and trying to make the comebacker.  I think that's okay on a short par 5; in fact, for a pretty much dead flat hole along the boundary, the green makes it a very interesting (if controversial) hole.

[ForkaB]

Tom

I'm probably not as good a putter as you, so I'd modify your criterion to say that a reasonably competent putter should be able to hit one's first putt from anywhere on the green to a position from which a 2-putt is relatively easy (i.e. maybe 20-feet below the hole).  Failure to meet this test defines "unfair" to me (and, yes, all you purists out there, golf is in fact meant to be "fair", at least at its extremes, IMHO).

I don't have the geometric knowledge to imagine what ed getka means by 5-putt territory at Rustic Canyon (which I have not played either).  Are there places and conditions which really require you to hit 3 putts in order to get into 2-putt territory?  If so, please explain, ed--my mind is boggled.  If, however, you are just saying that 5-putts are possible, well, they are possible for all of us, on virtually any reasonably fast green, aren't they?

[TEPaul]

Lynn, TomD, MarkF & Rich:

Really good posts, and quite consistent too. I'm interested in Rich's remark that he'd accept the likelihood on (some) greens of a 3 putt (first one to possibly 20 feet and then 2 putts from there).

That's probably a fairly open minded opinion! There're certainly numerous golfers out there who wouldn't remotely accept something like that. Some might in theory but if it actually happened to them they'd probably have a different opinion.

And I agree with Lynn that having to come up short of a green to have a less risky next play (instead of a putt) is a bit much.

And I believe I feel the same as most who responded that the idea of a real "greens within a green" should not be overused on any golf course.

But when done well, and sparingly it can be something else, great stuff really--sort of unforgettable--particularlay if one pulls off the correct shots (approaching and putting).

In that vein probably the best offering of a "green within a green" really is NGLA's #6 (the Short). It's never more than 140 yards from you, right below you, completely visible, extremely large green for such a short shot but when considering the "greens within the green" aspect of it the targets are remarkably small! The various targets (greens with the green) are also most interesting to play tee shots to (as well as putt)!

PS:

Tom Doak:

Congratulations on thinking you're a really good putter. I hope you realize what an asset that is for any golfer to say that about himself and to really mean it. I know a lot of golfers who're really good putters but for various reasons don't actually think they are. They're always at a bit of a disadvantage with that attitude. So I hope you fully realize what a terrific asset it is for any golfer to REALLY believe he'is a good putter. In my opinion that attitude is not common but if a golfer has it it puts him way ahead of the game! Again, congratulations--don't ever lose that attitude!

PPS:

I'm sure it has plenty to do with why you're a very creative green builder too.

[A_Clay_Man]

Lynn- I don't know if TePaul meant missing the green literally, as in, completly intentionally. I'll site the 9th at Spanish Bay. With a front pin I would often give the advice " I'd rather see you 5 yards short of the green than 5 feet past the flag". This sage advice wasn't telling the golfer to miss it short on purpose, it was meant to inform them of the spot to miss it.
There are other holes I've seen where after witnessing many people who hit the green ended with bogey and at the same time those that missed, short, made par. I would be a fool (quiet) to pull the club that takes me past the hole, no?

[ed_getka]

Rich,
 At Rustic the 12th hole is a drivable par 4. I saw a golfer drive pin high, but ~25yds. right of the green. The green rises up to a shelf that drops down ~3-4feet and leaves a ball about 15-20ft away (behind the green when viewed from the tee). So after driving right of the green (with the shelf on his right for the approach), the golfer putted his approach, which caught the invisible side canyon slope. His ball rolled down to the right ~20ft away. Next putt was just a little weak and ended back where it started (there is enough flattish shelf up on top that the putt is not super difficult). Third putt wasn't about to be short and went 10 feet by. Fourth putt left a 3 foot comebacker for 5.
I know an approach with putter probably doesn't technically count, but the putter was used 5 times, due to forgetting to account for how playing a shot sideways across the canyon will drift down canyon, off the shelf, and into putting purgatory.

I was even closer to the green, ran a shot up, but also forgot the side canyon effect(which was particularly stupid of me after watching the previous golfer's shot), and ended up 3 putting from the bottom of the shelf.

I wish I could draw a picture on here, but those who have played the course know what I am describing. I don't think many would consider the hole unfair who have played the hole a few times.

[TEPaul]

Adam:

I did mean trying to come up short of a green on purpose. #2 Seminole with a very short pin that was the thing to do in one tournment.

[ForkaB]

Thanks, ed

I think you are confirming that a 5-putt at RC #12 is a result of pilot error rather than some sort of structural failure.  I'm sure that Tom Doak could 2-putt from the position which you describe.

[TEPaul]

On the subject of "greens within a green", most of what I'm thinking about are greens where if in the wrong spot on the green getting the first putt close to particular cups is impossible (given certain acceptable greenspeeds).

But there is another variation of "greens within a green" that's most interesting that might be found on say Friar's Head's #7, #9, #14 and possibly a few others. I'm quite sure of #7, in any case. It would appear to almost any golfer on that one that there's no way of getting a first putt from various areas to a particular pin placement close but actually there is. But how to do it is very unusual and something I doubt many would ever pick up on without some real experience.

My feeling is Bakst and maybe C&C are very proud of that particular complex transition area and to maintain it as such perhaps that area will in effect become the area on the course they identify and apply the "Steve Curry Greenspeed Barometer".

[Rick_Noyes]

I believe Tom Doak alluded to this, I think, architecturally speaking, the number and severity of green contours has a direct relationship to the overall square footage of the green.  You can have a severly contoured green of say 5000 square feet that would seem "unfair".  Put those same contours on a 7000 square foot green and they may appear subtle.  I know there are probably thousands of examples that contradict this.  But it has been my experience that too many severe contours on smaller greens equals less pinable positions, more green to maintain that is "unusable" and often is referred to as 'tricked-up".

On short par-4's or par-5's where the green contour maybe the hole's only defense, we have tried to grade greens as severely as we could, yet still having several areas to cut a hole.  These greens were still in the 6500-7000 sq.ft. range.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()