Do highly contoured greens favor bad putters?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tripp Davis,

You're confusing a putt that breaks 6 inches in 10 feet with the term, "HIGHLY CONTOURED".

[Doug Sobieski]

Tom Huckaby:

If I recall correctly, you serve one of your state golf associations in establishing course ratings. So based upon your assertion, the more contoured the greens are, the more the Slope Rating should go down. Is that per the manual?

Makes sense to me!!    By that logic, I suppose the Slope Rating at Crystal Downs (some of the most severe greens anywhere!) should be about 105  

All the best,

Doug

[Jim Thompson]

Thoughts after reading post:

1.  Highly contoured greens favor the better iron player as the contouring tends to expose directional or distance errors as they decrease the possibility for success on next shot, putt, from one or more sides of the cup.

2.  Some strokes on or around highly contoured greens, though performed with the putter, are recovery shots with success expectations that should be closer to chips, pitches, flops, etc…

3.  The better recovery putter has a better chance of success than the weaker recovery putter.  Mostly due to ability to read and execute the "speed putt".

4.  Some strokes performed with the putter on highly contoured greens are not makeable and the object is to get in the position one desired after prior shot.

5.  Doug Sobieski had very little chance of making his putt on number six and would have been glad to get within four feet and be below the hole  

6.  Giant greens are not easier than average or small greens if they follow the green within a green approach and the USGA rating system does not fully address this issue.

Cheers!


JT

[THuckaby2]

Tom Doak:

EUREKA!  Thankfully someone gets this, which really shouldn't be all that difficult to grasp.  And damn right that's what you should be doing - keep up the good work.

Doug S.:

I am indeed a course rating volunteer.  Note that on very highly contoured greens, the surface rating just maxes out, both for scratch and bogey - and doesn't account for the loss of strokes well enough, methinks.  The system does however give the bogey an extra point - so you have me there!  In both of these cases, I believe the system is wrong and should be tweaked.  This shall be my new crusade.

AGC:

Once again, you're only chance that Ben will 3jack will be on the contoured greens.  It's not that you won't find those greens diffcult - its that HE WILL.
 

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

We crossed.  I addressed Doug's point - I think the course rating system fails in this.  One way or the other though, please do understand it's always going to be just one of many criteria, so it's never going to make a HUGE difference in the number.  Sorry guys, Crystal Downs is never going to be 105.  But come to think of it, just like Tom Doak implies, don't we WANT lower slopes?  Or are you all into punishing the bogey golfer?

As for AGC, he remains wrong, as do you.  But you're getting closer, which is nice to see.

 

TH

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thoughts after reading post:

1.  Highly contoured greens favor the better iron player as the contouring tends to expose directional or distance errors as they decrease the possibility for success on next shot, putt, from one or more sides of the cup.

I'm glad to have inpired a five page theoretical thread that has stayed theroetical - with no architect bashing anywhere to be found!  This is the type of discussion I like here.....

Since that comment came from Larry Nelson, who was one of the more accurate players of all time, I think Jim caught the essence of his argument for highly contoured greens.  In addition to his putting skills - he is probably a great lag putter, but doesn't often putt the lights out.  In the late 80's to mid 90's I recall him being in contention at four straight US Opens, all requiring accuracy.  He made every tough par save putt he looked at, but never made enough birdies to win his second open.

At Brookstone, he wanted greens flattish in the middle, but with dramatic "spikes" or ridges working in from the edges of the greens to present the most challenge to iron play when going for the tucked pins.  He felt that if you played to the middle of the green you should have a 30 foot putt, and playing for the pins, you would either clear the ridge and have a short putt, or have it reject your ball back to a longer putt.

Thus, the high contours reward accuracy as much as putting skill.  And when you think about it, decreasing the percentage importance of putting compared to accuracy isn't all that bad a thing......

[THuckaby2]

What's a crock is that you find that a valid example.  Come on Dave, where the ball ends up has only a LITTLE to do with total number of putts.  Ole Ben is gonna get the ball only a bit closer than the average hack.

Please.  You are penalized 15 yards for invalid example and are now forced to admit to going to the Northern Illinois instead of Northwestern.

 

The greens Ben putts on on the rest of the Sr. Tour are never going to be all that flat.  His stats at Augusta relative to the rest of the tour are not very helpful for this discussion, because how Ben plays the courses has SO much to do with his total number of putts.  He might end up having LESS at Augusta just due to his approach... constant care to miss on the proper side, etc.

Now here's an example worthy of someone with an actual college education, which I thought you had until this morning:

Put a ball in the middle of each green at Augusta, and a ball in the middle of each green at San Jose Muni (pancake flat and medium speed greens, for the most part).  Average Hack against Ben.  Normal, not crazy pin positions at Augusta (but understand the wilder you make the pins, the better chance AH has relative to Ben, cause Ben willl never make any and will 3jack more).  Pin positions meaningless at SJ Muni.  Range the putt distances from 10 feet to 60 feet.

I'm betting AH comes closer to Ben over 18 holes at Augusta than AH does at SJ Muni, in total putts. I've said why at least a dozen times already.

You will likely choose to disagree, and that is fine.  At least we'd be working from a proper example.

TH

[TEPaul]

Tom Huckaby said;

"But come to think of it, just like Tom Doak implies, don't we WANT lower slopes?  Or are you all into punishing the bogey golfer?"

I believe this is probably the most important and the underlying point here. Generally speaking most golf courses and clubs probably should want lower slope ratings on their courses. If they also want high courses ratings then so be it. One might even look at a course with a high course rating and a low slope to be the "ideal" golf course (both testing the good player and relatively accomodating the less good player).

But the fact is that some courses were very purposefully not intended to be that way. PVGC may be the best and the original example of that---it's always had a high course rating and a very high slope rating. That's completely apropos to the design intent of the golf course by Crump---eg to really test the very best and to discourage the not good player from even coming there.

There's no question that the highly contoured greens of PVGC are simply part of that equation. While "course rating" is app 80-85% derived from raw distance obviously the difficulty in scoring at PVGC is largely derived from the "obstacle rating" of the course which makes up the other 15-20%----and that definitely includes the difficulty of the greens.

[THuckaby2]

I say this:

We can each go on all day making up examples that support our positions.  I don't buy yours, you don't buy mine.

I'm gonna stop now.  You have not convinced me - even with this - and in the spirt of exasperation, the time has come for me to give up trying to convince you.

I'm pretty happy with Goodale, Doak and John Cavanaugh (an eclectic group to say the least) on my side here.  Nothing against you and the others who miss this very easy to understand point, but well... maybe someday you'll all come around.  I do have hope for you.

 

TH

[THuckaby2]

Sorry Dave, but I don't buy that as a fair example to settle this issue.

Take my example a few posts back, which is what I do accept as valid to settle this.

I do believe AH comes closer to Ben at Augusta than he does at SAN JOSE muni.  (Jeez, get it right, will you?  The insult is tough to bear as you keep mistaking my beloved home for the dog-track I am using for this example.  And if you are gonna perpetuate this insult, at least spell the name of my beloved home correctly.  Thomas gets an h.  Teresa does not.  Santa Teresa also has a LOT of contour on many greens.  I'd love to make Ben putt #10 to a front pin from past the hole, for example.).

I'm sure you will disagree.  As I say, that is fine.  You remain misguided and wrong.

 

[George Pazin]

No way you guys are right. And Tom D doesn't agree with you, he's just humoring you to justify his rollercoaster greens.

I'm not wasting anymore time on this silliness.

[THuckaby2]

George:

How much time have you wasted?  Jeez, your time must be damn precious.

OK, leave Doak out.  I'll take Goodale and Kavanaugh and feel very good about this.  Some concepts are just best understood by geniuses and eccentrics and those who stumble upon their wisdom.

I'll let you figure out who's who.

 

[THuckaby2]

Tom Huckaby said;

"But come to think of it, just like Tom Doak implies, don't we WANT lower slopes?  Or are you all into punishing the bogey golfer?"

I believe this is probably the most important and the underlying point here. Generally speaking most golf courses and clubs probably should want lower slope ratings on their courses. If they also want high courses ratings then so be it. One might even look at a course with a high course rating and a low slope to be the "ideal" golf course (both testing the good player and relatively accomodating the less good player).

But the fact is that some courses were very purposefully not intended to be that way. PVGC may be the best and the original example of that---it's always had a high course rating and a very high slope rating. That's completely apropos to the design intent of the golf course by Crump---eg to really test the very best and to discourage the not good player from even coming there.

There's no question that the highly contoured greens of PVGC are simply part of that equation. While "course rating" is app 80-85% derived from raw distance obviously the difficulty in scoring at PVGC is largely derived from the "obstacle rating" of the course which makes up the other 15-20%----and that definitely includes the difficulty of the greens.

Now THIS is getting into the architectural crux of things, and really should have it's own separate topic.

I'd agree that at a very few courses, the intent is for ALL golfers to be tested/punished, and giving the bogey golfer a chance at success is irrelevant.  Pine Valley is certainly one of these, and I'd put Oakmont, PGA-West Stadium, and the lesser-known Fort Ord-Bayonet (as it used to be) in this category.  These courses are meant to be supreme tests and really aren't meant to be played by bogey golfers, except for masochistic purposes.

But courses such as these certainly must be the tiny exception.

In general, wouldn't the perfect golf course have a high course rating and a low slope?  That would mean, obviously, challenging for the scratch but doable for the bogey.  We've discussed this before.  Seems to me to be hard to disagree with this as a goal - HOW to make it happen is where it gets tricky.

Unfortunately, based on the way things are computed now, making highly-contoured greens is not going to achieve this end - because as Doug S. so artfully pointed out, the numbers don't work out this way the way they are computed now.  Tough green = tough green for the scratch, tougher green for the bogey, unfortunately.  However, I really do believe that in reality it does achieve this end, to some extent... so I am all for highly contoured greens, so long as they don't go off the deep end of absurdity.

In any case, this is a very interesting principle... to me anyway!

TH

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

My marbles remain intact, but I appreciate the concern.  

I disagree with your numbers and conclusions, to a huge extent.

Not much more to say.

TH

[THuckaby2]

Jeez you are a bulldog.

But I'm gonna exasperate the hell out of you and refuse to play this game.  Whatever number I say, you are just gonna tell me how wrong I am.

I have said already I give up.  You will not convince me, and I will not convince you.

But I have become convinced of one thing:  if I ever need a lawyer in a situation where you believe in our common cause, I know where to turn.

 

[JakaB]

Dave,

I thought I nailed this when I offered to play Tripp at Torrey Pines getting 10 strokes while only needing 8 at Pasa....If you had to bet your left nut in a game against a tour pro....wouldn't you want to play at Pasa over Torrey everytime because of the many, many birdies a tour pro would make at Torrey because of the flat greens.....Most especially in match play you will win or tie more holes at Pasa everyday of the week due to the difficult putts which will equalize out your poorer ball striking...

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

OK, you win.  You're right.  I'm absolutely wrong.

And if you believe that, I've also got some swampland for you.

Exasperated yet?

 

Dave, it's very simple.  First, you neglected to include the longer putts, where Ben will 3jack.  Second, no matter how you do this, I'm gonna give numbers that make my theory correct, and I refuse to do so because I know you're just going to tell me how wrong I am.  So why bother?

TH

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

That's very cool.  I do appreciate the effort.  The example remains invalid though because you neglected to include the longer putts where Ben will three-jack.

But just because you will not give up, and you are a former (and likely future) golf partner, I guess I will give you the satisfaction.

I just ran through this and I came out with a difference at Augusta of 32, and a difference at Random Hills at 38.  Include the longer putts and the differences will be greater, more in favor of Random Hills.

Feel free to tell me how wrong I am.

I believe we just look at the relative skills quite differently.  I just seem to believe Ben will make more on flat greens and miss more on contoured, and AH won't change much regardless of the greens.  That's the crux of our difference.

TH

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

Did it.  Go ahead and tell me how wrong I am.  Sorry I didn't give you the entire thing hole by hole, but I just erased it and dammit I am not gonna go through that pain again.  I gave you my totals.  As you can see, we disagree pretty completely.

Adding in the longer putts required by my original scenario just makes it favor me more, btw - at least in MY thinking.

TH

[JakaB]

Tom,

One reason Dave can not understand this is that he refused to admit that  he is a bad putter..... a guy who has to putt great to have 36 putts a round is not a bad putter, he is a terrible putter.  

[THuckaby2]

don't give me totals. Break it out.  That's the only way to compare apples to apples.  I want to see how many putts you think the random loser will take at ANGC and Random Hills.  I also want to see what you think he does from 20, 30 and 40 feet, which I suspect is where our differences probably lie.  If you think he's going to mysteriously start making 40 footers that he probably makes 2-3 times in an ENTIRE SEASON at Random Hills, I want to know that.

Do you REALLY want to make me go through that pain again?

Have a heart.

 

[JakaB]

Barney, I am speaking of the average muni player out there, the proverbial twice-a-month Joe Sixpack golfer.  Joe Sixpack whiffs every other putt.  He three whacks 3-4 times a round AT LEAST on a normal course.  He never makes jack squat from more than 20 feet.

Dave,

In case you have not noticed...this is a board about golf architecture....there has never been a topic discussed that pertains to architecture that has any value to the golfer you describe above....Even Hutto makes jack squat from 20 feet now and then and doesn't three jack 3 to 4 times every round.  Tell me....if you had the short game of D.A. Points would you be one of the top Mid Ams in the Midwest...and that guy can't even make the big show.....you my friend are either a bad putter or have been exagerating your ball striking prowness of late.   Tell me....when or where do you choke...and if it is on the green why....it can't be because you don't have the physical ability to putt...or that you don't understand how to putt...it is because you can't putt...you are a bad putter..

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

I can see this has some intrinsic importance to you.  But dammit, you owe me THREE beers plus a jigger of whatever single malt we can find, come Cuscowilla, for going through this pain and subjecting myself to your wrath.

OK, I did it again, and it came out the same.  Here's what I come up with.  Caveats:  I am NOT, repeat NOT, going to hash over every freakin' number, with you telling me how wrong I am.  We just plain look at this very differently.  So I'll accept ONE message where you can tell me what an idiot I am and why, but all you are going to get back is "I told you we look at this differently."  References to current putting stats on tours are irrelevant, because Ben never plays the kind of pancake flat greens I am talking about for this, and he also treats Augusta quite differently in approach, I am certain.

So with all those caveats out of the way, keeping in mind I am on the stand being treated as a hostile witness by a very skilled lawyer, here goes:

ANGC:

20 ten footers:  total putts:  AH 44 Ben 36

20 twenty footers:  total putts:  AH 46 Ben 39

20 thrity footers:  total putts:  AH 51 Ben 42

6 five footers:  total putts:  AH 11 Ben 8

6 forty footers:  total putts:  AH 18 Ben 13


 
Now, let's do this at a Random Course with boring greens.

20 ten footers:  total putts:  AH 39 Ben 28

20 twenty footers:  total putts:  AH 42 Ben 34

20 thrity footers:  total putts:  AH 48 Ben 37

6 five footers:  total putts:  AH 10 Ben 6

6 forty footers:  total putts:  AH 16  Ben 12

My numbers are not jiggered at all.  I just filled 'em in based on what I know, and here's how it played out:

ANGC:  AH – 170
          Ben – 138


Random Hills:  AH: 155
                  Ben:  117


Difference at ANGC:  32
Difference at Random Hills:  38.

TH, bracing for impact.
 

[Brent Hutto]

I just seem to believe Ben will make more on flat greens and miss more on contoured, and AH won't change much regardless of the greens.  That's the crux of our difference.

That's a heck of a crux. Anyone who misses a bunch of putts on flat greens will be three-putting, four-putting or worse practically every hole at ANGC.

Did you perchance happen to start out thinking only about made first putts? Because the real problem is that when Crenshaw misses, his next putts will be way closer to the hole on highly-contoured greens. Ben will be missing by two feet and the bad putter will be missing by twenty feet. Even if they both miss by ten feet, Ben is much more likely to make the 10-footer and if he misses he'll be within inches whereas the bad putter will have another three or five or eight footer still to go. And so forth as long as it takes to get the ball in the hole. No gimmes, right?

[THuckaby2]

Brent:

Unbelievably given my many posts in this thread, I actually haven't given this the vast amount of thought and preparation I normally put into an appearance as a witness (which I sometimes do as part of my job, ironically enough).

So every single nuance of it likely escapes me.

I just do think that yes, Ben will get his closer.  And yes, he is damn unlikely to ever four-putt.  But I don't think the average hack will either, as much as many of you do.  I just plain don't think he'll do THAT bad at Augusta, as the painful exercise my (former) friend made me go through shows.   Just a fundamental difference.  

TH