Defending par at the green????

[Mike_Young]

I was reading TD "Tougher but fairer " post and thought I would throw this up.  With the modern professional and young amatuers using the available equipment, and without lengthening a course to over 7500 yards, can par be protected anywhere other than the green.  I just don't see it.

[Ken Fry]

Wouldn't most on this site agree the success of some of the "older" layouts used for tournament golf lies in the difficulties on and around the greens?

[Jason Mandel]

Mike,

I would say the other thing that can be done to protect par would be in the contouring of the fairway.  If you get the best golfers in the world obviously lenght is not going to be issue with them and while defending it at the green helps, constantly giving golfers uneven lies where they can not get comfortable certainly wll help to defend par.

Anyone who has ever played Huntingdon Valley can certainly attest to this.

Jason

[Mike_Young]

Jason,
I have considered that but don't think it matters when you are hitting wedges.  Remember I am saying no more length... therefore fairway bunkers that might have once required a lofted 6 iron to escape and reach a green are today requiring 9 iron or wedge.  I think the same is true for a 6 iron off of undulating fairway vs. a wedge.  Just an opinion.

[Ken Fry]

Mike,

Is it a bad thing to have a course's "primary defenses" built into the greens?

[Mike_Young]

KFry,
Not at all.  That is what I am saying...live with it because now that the driver is all carry, I just don't see the areas between tee and landing of driver having a defense......now maybe...say a 480 yard hole is a driver and 6 or 7 iron ,then possibly a lip on a bunker that will require some manipulation..but many of those length and we are at 7500.
In other words, I don't see a 7000 or 7200 yard course requiring more than a few 8 irons and the rest 9's and wedges.  Some may say bunker the fairway but these guys don't mind 8 and 9s from fairway bunkers.

I would say that the basic difference to me between classic design and modern design has been that IMHO the dead guys were asking you to keep the ball between you and the hole and never beyond it.  Then along came some professional golfer/architects who said...ok...carry the ball the correct distance and you should be allowed a flat putt.  It eliminated the theory of placing the ball in the proper place in place on a green in favor of proper distance.

 Last year a tour player told me that the biggest difference between a Tiger and the others was the fact that he placed the ball within 10 feet of the hole twice per round while the others may have been at 20.  Having said all of the above and with the excellent condition of greens today, IMHO the only way to keep good players from scoring is to keep their approaches from getting close unless it is a perfect shot.  Thus the greens become the best and sometimes only defense.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

There are other things which can thwart par golf:  wind and trees.  But I agree that the green end is the key.

The sad part is that a lot of "authority figures" suggest lengthening a golf course because they know it doesn't make it harder for them ... just for the weaker players.  This is the good player's definition of "fair" ... that their strength is rewarded.

[Mike_Young]

Tom,
Yep, I agree on wind and trees but I sometimes wonder if we give the "authority figures" more credit than they deserve when it comes to thinking.  Seems like if they were such proponents of length they would think from the green backwards and not the tee forward.  

[Ken Fry]

Mike,

As an architect, do you feel this may open up more creative possibilities for green complexes?  Could this mode of thinking also change the PERCEPTION that courses need to get longer?  (And to that end, green speeds need to go faster??)

The concern I would have is who are the courses being designed for?  To challenge the world's best players (or even the just the top tier amateurs) green complexes should demand approach shots that need to be hit to appropriate locations on a green.  But what about the other 95% of players of various skill levels?  A fine line exists between challenging a skilled player while allowing the average to below average player to get around a course in under five hours.

I'll take Tom Doak's Lost Dunes as an example.  I enjoy the greens.  I've come across many that feel they are too severe.  You never satisfy everyone but to protect the course, how far is too far in the design of the greens?

Ken

[TEPaul]

I think "par" can be defended on and around the green really well on the old architecture by some of what I've come to call "The Ideal Maintenance Meld". What that is on and around the green is basically the "ideal" combination of green speed AND green surface firmness. The latter is essentially the over-all key to defending par on older courses against good players!

What is the "ideal" green speed for most of these old courses with some good slope and contour to defend par "reasonably" against good players? I've come to believe its right around 11 on the stimpmeter.

What's the "ideal" green surface firmness to defend par against good players on old architecture with greens that have good slope and contour? I believe it's when the green surface only very lightly "dents" to a really well struck short iron such as a wedge or a 9 iron (does not pull up any dirt)!

The problem with defending "par" at the green end this way is, unfortunately, the USGA and others have already gotten very sophisticated with this prescription! The danger is, they don't seem particularly well aware at this point how close the "danger area" is just over greens that're 11 and greens that only slightly dent to a really well struck short iron.

Greens that're sloped and contoured as many of the old ones are go "over the top" just past 11 on the stimpmeter, in my opinion, and green surfaces that don't even lightly dent do too!

[Bob_Huntley]

Tom,

I think the 12th at TOC gave some players food for thought in the recent Dunhill tournament. I've said it before and I'll say it again, build some diabolical pot bunkers in the driving area or place a ditch of "filthy waste" there and it will bring golf back to its senses.

[Mike_Young]

Kfry,
IMHO the greens complexes should only become more severe in the sense that they create a premium on the approach angle from the fairway or rough.  For example:  I don't see the pin placement area needing more slope but the transition areas within the green and around the green can help define the best approach.  IMHO the lateral slopes of a green complex might become more important.  Say a green is placed on a right to left angle on a dogleg left hole and the "mitt" of the green is  ideal for the left side fairway approach.  all of the green complex on the left side can have a very subtle approach/chipping areas but the green complex/chipping area to the right can have a very vertical transition to the putting surface making a right side fairway approach very difficult.  I just don't see the pin placements becoming more severe.  I don't think good players like ball movement laterally on a green from the approach shot once it lands.  Thats what you got to give them.  Does this make any sense at all?  

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

Mike,

Who said par needs defending?

[Mike_Young]

The authority figures

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

And what do you think?  Do you think it needs defending?

[Ken Fry]

Mike,

Your description sounds a little like what the players face each year at The Masters.  It seems on the PGA Tour, there are very few tournament venues that require the precision to find some of the pin locations (i.e. playing away from the hole and using the green's contours to get to a hole location).

I understand the angular options and visual challenge from the fairway you describe, but how important would the pace of the greens be to reach the appropriate level of lateral movement you're looking for?

[Mike_Young]

Jeremy,
I do think it needs defending.  I think it has become the universal language for speaking golf.  Maybe that wasn't so during the match play days.
Kfry,
I played Cuscowilla yesterday and was speaking to the Rusty, the supt., there a few days ago.  He brought up green speed.  I think he tries to stay around 10 and I agree. I saw above where TE Paul is saying 11.  OK but that is a lot of difference. So I would say no less than 10 would give one acceptable lateral movement.  But where it could really matter would be a speed of 7 or so in the complex around the green.

[TEPaul]

Kfry said;

"Your description sounds a little like what the players face each year at The Masters.  It seems on the PGA Tour, there are very few tournament venues that require the precision to find some of the pin locations (i.e. playing away from the hole and using the green's contours to get to a hole location)."

KFry:

What you described there I think isn't even true of the Masters in some cases but the fact we should all recognize and praise is the Sunday round of this year's Masters. What we all had the good fortune of seeing and appreciating is a course like that set up to the maximum of what should reasonably test those great players, and, better yet, we saw a few of those players rise to the occasion and accept that test on the back nine on Sunday that was nothing short of incredible. Contenders like Mickelson and his caddie had the supreme sophistication to understand that Sunday Master's set-up would not allow a great player to go pin hunting and that it required of the player to hit his approach shots to spots that would allow his ball to filter to the hole using the entire offering of the architecture and a great maintenance production in set-up!

I thought it was not only impressive that they could hit the required shots but that they had the ability to read the course set-up and figure it all out. To me it was like the champion race car driver going at the limit of tire adhesion throughout---sort of driving by feeling in his seat, if you know what I mean.

I'll never forget 2004 Masters Sunday---it was a magnificent combination of set-up and performance response from the contenders!

Basically, 2004 Masters Sunday was just about as good as it can get.

[Ken Fry]

Tom,

Concerning the green surfaces, I believe each year we see the players at Augusta unable to go "pin hunting" unless heavy rains have softened the greens up considerably.  Under normal conditions, players are forced to hit to very specific areas to allow either the ball to feed to the hole or to a place where a realistic chance to make an agressive putt at the hole exists.

I bring up Augusta because their course set up for The Masters would demonstrate what I'm under the impression Mike is discussing for "lateral" movement on the greens.  This is why I inquired about green speed because it can have such a large impact (either too much or too little).

Mike,

Now I understand the movement you are discussing both on and around the greens.  I agree a "standard" for green speeds is unrealistic because of the severity or lack of slope a green complex has.  I also was at a Coore & Crenshaw course and ideally the greens play well around 10.  Any more speed and the contours will allow putts to get out of hand.

I love playing Crystal Downs, but it seems a good portion of the mystique on the greens there is the overall speed.  You hear many times the staff brag that they've seen someone putt off every green on the course.  Would that still be the case if the greens were running at 10?

If it came down to pure green speed or contoured greens that make you think from the fairway right into the hole, the more thought provoking design will provide a better day in, day out challenge.

[Mike_Young]

KFry,
I played Crystal Downs with Fred Muller, the pro last month and I think he told me they keep the greens around 10.  Most just think they are faster.
you state "If it came down to pure green speed or contoured greens that make you think from the fairway right into the hole, the more thought provoking design will provide a better day in, day out challenge."
Don't you think the biggest difference between a great classic and a modern course is the necessity to think from the hole out and not the fairway in?  I think the best executed round I ever saw was sometime in the 70's (maybe 73) when David Graham won the Open at Merion.  He  thought that course from the hole backwards and was able to execute the required shots.

[Don_Mahaffey]

I think all the great courses have always defended par at the greens.

Here's my take on the modern scratch or better player. He hits it far, hits it high, and hits it pretty straight. Golf courses with narrow fwys and rock hard fast greens seems to be the modern test of championship golfers.
Would a course with stategic width force the player to think? Isn't getting inside the head of the good player the #1 defense. Isn't that what the USGA sets out to do with their set-ups? Would rock hard, severly sloped greens that can't be held when going at the flag from the wrong part of the fwy help defend par? I think we need more courses where the smart play is away from the flag. The modern trend of narrow fwys and flat fast greens just plays into the hands of the good player and drives the average guy away from the game. Give 'em some width, but design greens that have certain pins that can only be attacked successfully from certain areas of the fwys. Build sloped fwys where the guy who hits in the wrong spot has to hit a high fade with the ball a foot above his feet. Force the good player to be very precise off the tee and give the average guy alot of room to keep his ball in play.
Why not?

[Mike_Young]

Don,
I agree with your assessment but until we can keep the good players from hitting approach shots with 8,9 or PW they will try to get it up and down from even their misses on narrow holes. I like that width in the fairways as you say.
Would you not agree that DRIVER distance is the problem.  If an architect could increase distance for approach shots instead of the tee shot we could regain some of the lost strategies but when you have to add driver length you are up near 8000 yards.

[Tom_Doak]

Ken:

Fred Muller told me he had seen members putt off every green at Crystal Downs as far back as 1986, when they were rarely above 9 on the Stimpmeter.  Most of them are severe enough that I still believe they would be a fine challenge at that speed.  You wouldn't see all the nuances you see now, but you'd still have to play to the correct side of the hole if you wanted to make birdies or pars.

[BCrosby]

Don -

Good post. I have a quibble and a comment. First, the quibble:

You say:

"Isn't getting inside the head of the good player the #1 defense. Isn't that what the USGA sets out to do with their set-ups?"

That is precisely what USGA setups don't do. They demand play down a narrow corridor. Mechanical perfection, not thinking, gets you the big handshake from the USGA.

Your larger point is interesting and I agree with it. Sort of. The problem is that the distances people now hit it means that strategy matters much less. I wish it weren't true. I wish there was a way to make strategic thinking important. But fronting bunkers, contouring, water, rough, and all the other things that used to give good players pause don't matter much any more. Not if you are hitting PW's into greens. And that is a by-product of the nutty distances people now hit it off the tee.

Bob  

[Brian_Gracely]

Mike Y,

You mentioned that architects need to figure out ways to get 8,9,PW,SW out of players hands for approach shots.  But what distances do you think these should relate to?  Or is this not about a distance but rather the simplicity of having a short (ie. more accurate) club in their hands?  I only ask because I keep hearing about players hitting 180yd 8-iron.