[TEPaul]

I just read Jeremy Glenn's article in "The Golfer" magazine entitled "Par for the Course" in which Jeremy questions the use of par in golf or at least the fixation on par.

This is how the USGA defines par:

"Par is the score that an expert golfer would be expected to make for a given hole. Par means errorless play under ordinary playing conditions, allowing two strokes on the putting green."

It may be time to begin to enhance and improve the incredibly interesting little strategies that can happen on and around the putting green, and to do that it may be necessary to ditch the idea of par as it relates to the putting green that’s countenanced in that USGA phrase ‘allowing two putts on the putting green’.

The perception that's so prevalent and locked-in today that two putts should be every golfer’s expectation on putting greens (in an architectural sense) may need to be done away with. This could truly bring in the idea of “greens within a green” and the understanding that playing to various parts of putting greens can not only be highly strategic but necessary to save a stroke by avoiding the complete likelihood or almost certainty of a three putt or worse!

Enhancing the strategies on or around putting greens this way is also something I’d call “democratic strategy” as it really doesn’t require strength, as does much of the long game. It mere requires strategic thought, imagination and concentration. Basically anyone could do it---if they used their heads intelligently!

[Wayne_Freedman]

Traditionally, golfers expect they should be able to two-putt greens. When greens become more demanding or penal, golfers tend to complain. Look no further than discussions on this board re: the USGA's Open set-ups.

Personally, I like a green with elements of challenge and danger.
Holes are more interesting when they require strategy, planning, risk, and reward. But, after generations, the notion of par has become sacred. If you're talking about making greens more difficult as a defense to added length, I'm for it only if those holes  treat all golfers equally and fairly. Otherwise, an intentional  three-putt green sounds a lot to me like miniature golf.

Would love to discuss this some more....but I'm out of computer contact for one blessed week.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I personally reevaluated the expectation of two putting when I played Oakmont.......

I still say that if I could have three putted any of the first four greens, they wouldn't have cowed me quite so much the rest of the round.....

[RJ_Daley]

As one of the lousiest putters of all time, 3 putting as many as 3-5 times per round, this makes me wonder....

Would green complexity via slope and contour, run-away shoulders to hollows, and more attitude towards pin placements on edges of fall-aways make a 3 putt strategy more conventional?  Then, would I be more competative with better players who also would expect more 3-putts, or would I get a new knickname among my regular playing buddies of 4 putt Dick?

[TEPaul]

I'll give you a few notable examples.

A few of the greens at NGLA--eg #1, 3, 6, perhaps #11 and 15, possibly one green at my course #7, perhaps the 8th at Fox Chapel and probably numerous others are such that you basically have to be in the correct section with the pin or you're chances of two-putting is probably in the realm of getting lucky. Personally I think this is and can be highly strategic golf although there's no question some might view it as Mickey Mouse or Mini-golf as their perception of the assumption that everyone should be able two putting from anywhere seems to be so strong.

If you look at it high greenspeeds probably aren't the most direct reason people are inclined to soften and recontour greens---it has more to do with insuring the possibliity of two putting from anywhere.

So there're two ways to look at it--either,

1. Slow the greens down. or,
2. Simply accept the likelihood of 3 putting from certain green positions.

Personally, I like the latter a lot more---as it really can be strategic.

[T_MacWood]

This reminds me of a proposal (I believe by Gene Sarazen) to increase the size of the golf hole....only in reverse. Sarazen and others argued that the importance of putting should be lessened, it played too large a percentage of the game. There was also a proposal to only count putts as a half a stroke. Sarazen and others argued the long game was the most important aspect of the game.

Now we are proposing that putting play a larger percentage. It seems to me the reason for this current proposal can be traced to the enormous distances the ball is travelling--a reaction to counter uncontrolled technology. Instead of making putting a larger percentage of the game, why not do something about the golf ball?

[TEPaul]

"Now we are proposing that putting play a larger percentage. It seems to me the reason for this current proposal can be traced to the enormous distances the ball is travelling--a reaction to counter uncontrolled technology. Instead of making putting a larger percentage of the game, why not do something about the golf ball?"

Tom:

You can look at in those ways if you want to but I'm saying it because I simply think it's more strategic and consequently more interesting and more fun. We've taken our greens up about 6" to a foot in greenspeed this year (to the limit I believe they're the most interesting and challenging) and to be honest after playing the course for about 25 years I've never had so much fun. The little strategies in approaching the greens, recovering from around the greens and putting on the greens have just completely come alive. There're things you can do now you never were able to before. It's just a ball! Of course, now if you are in the wrong parts of some greens to their pin you have problems you never had before (very possible 3 putt). But I view that as all in all far more strategic!

A slight increase in our greenspeed has allowed this to happen but primarily it's due to the interesting slopes and contours of our putting greens which I hope to offer a proposal that the club resolve in the by-laws to never touch!

[TEPaul]

By the way, George Thomas's proposal to count putts as half strokes really wasn't because he thought putting was necessarily too large a percentage of golf (he figured about 50% vs 33 1/3% with half strokes for putts) but because it would consequently allow architects to design more holes in the half-par range distance-wise and to also cut down on the number of bunkers he felt whole stroke putts required. He felt this would make the game and architecture a bit more interesting, as well as less formulaic, and also make construction and maintenance less expensive.

[Wayne_Freedman]

Unfortunately, my Hawaiian condo has a computer.
Is this subject going the way you expected, TE?

[TEPaul]

WayneF asked;

"Is this subject going the way you expected, TE?"

Wayne:

That's a good question. I'm not sure I expected anything in particular.

This is Tom MacWood's reaction to it;

"Now we are proposing that putting play a larger percentage. It seems to me the reason for this current proposal can be traced to the enormous distances the ball is travelling--a reaction to counter uncontrolled technology. Instead of making putting a larger percentage of the game, why not do something about the golf ball?"

It doesn't surprise me that some on here will just automatically assume this idea or suggestion is in response to or in reaction to increased distance. It wouldn't surprise me either if someone else says this will lead to the likelihood of having more greens redesigned with the contours taken out of them by softening.

I'm not suggesting any such thing. I'm simply saying I think "greens within a green" can be more strategic, more interesting and challenging and more fun and for that greens generally require both good slope and good contour and enough speed so the ball can react in interesting ways on them---that's all!

[Wayne_Freedman]

It seems to me that putting is already 50%, if we're looking at the ideal. 36 putts are half of a par 72.

I'll take it back to my original proviso.
If architects build 'greens within greens' to counter
excessive length, then they're not considering the average
player who slices, misses fairways, and hasn't much power to begin with.

Such greens would be ideal for a classic pitch and putt course.

One other item...TE---13-THOUSAND posts?
I read your article on the Philadelphia school of architecture
a couple of months back, but the number is prodigious.

Meantime, it's early evening on Kauai, and y'all have gone to sleep.

[David_Elvins]

TEPaul,

In response to your question:
"Is it time to ditch the expectation of two-putting?"

I think that it is worth pointing out that there might be a case for reinforcing the expectation of two putting!  You see, currently the average number of putts per green in regulation on tour is about 1.8 putts.  This means that the average tour player has 5 one putts for every one 3 putts (I think).  I think it would be fair to say that with the slightly slower and softer green conditions in amateur competion the ratio would be similar.  So infact, players are not expecting to two putt, they are expecting to, on average, do better than two putts.  

I one hundred percent agree with the point that you are making but I thougt it would be worth pointing out that expressing it as a return to traditional values could be better than expressing it as a revolutionary new mindset.  I would love to see greens set up so players average 2 putts per green in regulation.  THat would be fun.

As you posted the USGA defines:
"Par is the score that an expert golfer would be expected to make for a given hole. Par means errorless play under ordinary playing conditions, allowing two strokes on the putting green."  

Is hitting the green but missing the pin by 50 feet on the "wrong side" "errorless play from an expert golfer"?  I don't think so.  I think the USGA definition is perfect and backs up your beliefs.

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

Does putting already constitute too much of the game?

A rhetorical question to be sure, but it is the one part of the game that equalizes superior physical ability in driving distance.

I propose that it is already a majotiry of the game as evidenced by yesterday's Buick Open.  If you didn't putt well on these smooth, rain-softened greens, you couldn't stay in contention.

Today's agronimistic advances, coupled with a return to more interesting contours and slopes, has taken the better putter to a higher level than those who excel in driving or iron play.  

Augusta and Shinnecock this year bore out this point.  Whistling Straits will also go to the player who can make the most six footers.

All of these enhancements in challenging the better play work against the average golfer who can't devote the practice time to improving both his ball striking AND his putting.

JWK

[TEPaul]

"Is hitting the green but missing the pin by 50 feet on the "wrong side" "errorless play from an expert golfer"?  I don't think so.  I think the USGA definition is perfect and backs up your beliefs."

David:

I don't know that the USGA definition is perfect as it certainly says nothing about the likelihood of 3 putting if you're 50 feet away from a pin on the wrong side of a green. All the USGA says on the matter of par is 'allowing two putts on the putting green".

In my mind that mindset has clearly created an expectation amongst golfers of all levels all over America that if they're anywhere on a putting green they should have some sort of architectural God Given right to be able to two putt!

I think that's wrong---I think that eventually works to create uninteresting putting greens and unintereting architecture!

Furthermore, I think it also creates an overwhelming mentality amongst golfers that if these older course slopes and contours can't handle today's greenspeeds they should be recontoured and softened.

I don't like any of that because I think that rips the character, challenge and interest out of many of these old putting greens. I also really like the additional interest and challenge of these old greens at speeds that may be higher than they were originally designed for. I think each club needs to understand better the limit their course can go to on greenspeed before that interest and challenge goes over the top. I also think I know exactly how that speed can be determined and capped!!

But the thing I'm talking about here is how much more fun it is to play these old slopes and contours at a good greenspeed for them---it's far more strategic and interesting and fun to me. I can't believe what just happened on my course in this vein---it's great--it's wonderful, and so far the membership seems to be loving it---but it does take some investigation and management to get it right.

But there are going to be a number of contributors on here who really don't want to listen to what I'm saying about the increased interest and challenge. They're simply going to respond with these automatic reactions;

1. It slows down play
2. It's unfair to some level of player
3. It's conducive to someone suggesting "softening"
4. It puts the agronomy in danger through stress
5. Putting is already too high a stroke percentage of the game, and doesn't need to increase.

What I'm saying is the assumption of two putting is too prevalent and it's deleterious to architecture. The accepted prospect of 3 putting from certain areas creates far more strategy both "through the green" and on the green and to me that's a very good thing and should be encouraged!

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

Well, that's news to me!

I didn't even know an article of mine was published in "The Golfer".

I guess I should get me a copy...  

[David_Elvins]

The accepted prospect of 3 putting from certain areas creates far more strategy both "through the green" and on the green and to me that's a very good thing and should be encouraged!

TEPaul,

I totally agree with you there.  From what I have seen and read it would appear that most of the world's top stategic courses have "dead" spots on the greens.  Royal Melbourne, Pine Valley, Augusta National would be three that spring to mind, I am sure you can fill in the gaps with many others.  And  i think they always have too.  It was part of their design intent.  

Of course, it is to some degree a matter of "different horses for different courses" and these conditions are most productive at members course that have generally higher skilled players, more repeat regular players, and less wear and tear than a daily fee course.

[TEPaul]

Jeremy:

That's funny!  

David:

There're so many examples of this but you're obviously right that the truly effective and functional "greens within a green" is probably not for all courses and all golfers. But it should be encouraged on some, I think. Some of the of the very best examples I know of are greens #1 and #4 at NGLA. It's so possible to be in some section of those two greens putting into one of the bowls on those green (two bowls on #1 and the horseshoe on #4).

Some golfers, certainly me included, will try to get way too greedy on those first putts and try to do something high risk like try to estimate speed to just get over the rims of those bowls and try to get the first putt close somehow. If anyone tries this their chances of not getting their first putt into that bowl at all is pretty good and if and when that happens their chances of four putting becomes pretty high.

The strategy they should both understand and accept is they're very likely going to three putt anyway, so the best strategy is to just get their first putt into the bowl and think of no worse than a two putt from there (and of course they may get lucky and make a longish second putt)!

To me that's great strategy and the reality of it really filters back to the approach shot to the green---in other words, although it ain't that easy to get into those bowls from the approach to the green you do work harder at it than normal and you do realize various spots on the green are not where you want to miss it!

It all just adds tremendous interest, fun and challenge throughout!

[A_Clay_Man]

TomP- Isn't it the assumptions and expectations you're talking about, come from certain trait types who look for excuses? and, If there are none, blame the archie?

I'm with you on what you're saying, and I'd be willing to bet that those who'd complain about the challenge, from contours on putting greens, are the same one's that want their maintenance perfect everywhere, all the time.

The interesting contours should highlight the importance of being in the better spot, to achieve the goal at hand.
Flat don't!

[TEPaul]

"TomP- Isn't it the assumptions and expectations you're talking about, come from certain trait types who look for excuses? and, If there are none, blame the archie?"

Adam:

Of course that's true--we all know that! That attitude has gotten so prevalent today even architects want to avoid that kind of heat and criticism at all costs--so what do they do? Many of them build more mundane and flatter greens where that kind of thing is never likely to happen! And they also agree to "soften" existing slope and contour for the same reasons!

What brought about that prevalent attitude amongst golfers today that they should all have some sort of architectural God given right to reasonably two putt from anywhere? I'm sure we all have our own opinions on that, not the least of which being people today don't seem to want to take responsiblity for their own actions as people once seemed willing to do, but it doesn't help much if they can all point to that remark of the USGA's about what par is and what's expected on putting greens---eg two putts!!!

The problem with that USGA remark is it says nothing about from where---all it says is once on a putting green!

[A_Clay_Man]

That attitude has gotten so prevalent today even architects want to avoid that kind of heat and criticism at all costs--so what do they do?

In the case of Rick Phelps and Baxter Spann, they build them, and hope they don't get lynched.

When was the last time we had a good ol' fashion architect lynching?

As for what the USGA writes, I was under the impression those were guidelines, inorder to form a foundation for definitions.


With all these old long holes becoming obsolete, I'd think the decision to add contouring would return the value of par so many are attached to.

As an example I'll use Baxter's favortite green at my home course. A very reachable par 5 BUT exemplifies the biggest oxymoron in golf. Safely on!

[TEPaul]

"As for what the USGA writes, I was under the impression those were guidelines, inorder to form a foundation for definitions."

You're right about that--that's probably what they are but are you seriously trying to tell me that American golfers are going to make those distinctions? All they see is "puttiing green" and "two putts". And don't try to tell me they should pay more attention to the word "expert" in that USGA phrase!  Even a tour pro knows his chances of two putting on some of the examples I've given from the wrong place isn't likely to happen. The difference with players like tour pros is they have the ability to strategically do something about it with their approaches to those greens---and in the end that's the basic point here---that's why greens like this are highly strategic, in my opinion.

[Wayne_Freedman]

TE,

I like and agree with your thoughts about putting old greens at the speeds they were originally designed.

What we've done to many of those greens, today, is the equivalent of buying a vintage classic car, and then improving the engine and suspension.

As for the rest---I don't think you're likely to see much of it.

[John_Cullum]

T Paul
I think the answer to this question can take off in many directions.

If I hit a reasonably good approach and get within 25 feet of the hole, I think I should have a solid opportunity to take no more than 2 putts. Now if I hit a bad putt and run it 8 feet by that's my fault. But I think it might be poor design if I looked at the putt and felt I needed to make sure I didn't 4 putt from 25 feet. (There are a few exceptions I'm sure.)

Now if you expand it to merely being on the green with  the hole some 40 plus feet away on the other side of a ridge or on a different level, I don't take a 2 putt for granted and look to blame somebody if I mishit/misjudge the putt. I am sure alot of players do though. These are the same players that think they are good enough to aim at the flag from 140 yards.
Most players are not as good as they think they are. It's not surprising. They watch the best 150 golfers in the world every weekend on TV, and, they just can't believe there is so much distance between those players and themselves.

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

I didn't say I like putting those old classic greens at the speeds they were originally designed for.

This is what I said about that;

" I also really like the additional interest and challenge of these old greens at speeds that may be higher than they were originally designed for."

I don't really know what greenspeed they were designed for or even if they were designed for an particular maximum greenspeed in the teens and 1920s. I doube anyone really knows what speed they were designed for, if any! In that day they were probably more concerned with growing a decent stand of grass on greens not necessarily what the speed of the greens were. The stimpmeter wasn't even invented then so greenspeed were not really determinable.

I think most all the old greens I've seen including some with some really dramatic slope and contour such as Merion, NGLA, PVGC, do work wel and do work and play very interesting and challenging at up to 10.5 or 11 and some such as Fox Chapel or Oakmont even higher. Fox Chapel worked well enough at the Pa State amateur at speeds higher than that.

The entire point here, though, is for each club to find their own "reasonable maximum" speed and to do so by never considering redesigning the slope and contour of their greens in an effort to soften them for green speeds beyond the original slope and contour "reasonable maximum". That, in most cases, is the primary playbable character of many to most of these old courses.

[ForkaB]

I played a largely unrestored McKenzie yesterday (Pitreavie) in a competition and the greens stimped at about 7.  If you cut those suckers to 10-11 you'd have to adopt the "after 4 putts pick up and go to the next hole rule" if you wanted anybody to finish their round.

Interestingly the club is trying to find ways to make the course more challenging to hold onto its better players (it's only 6100 yards or so, but hard to keep a low handicap on) but I think they'd never consider increasing green speed as the overall membership would never go for it.  To make it a challenge for the better players you would make it a nightmare for the average member.  Most average members have enough nightmares in their life to seek out more of them on their golf course, IMO.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()