How do you defend PAR at the green ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Without unduly penalizing the mid to high handicap player ?

[TEPaul]

The only way to do it is with a decent greenspeed and a surface firmness where the golf ball makes only a light dent to a well struck 9 iron from a fairway lie and is not able to stick near its pitch mark or suck back under those conditions. To defend par properly at the green the green cannot be as receptive as a dart board to approach shots.  

[peter_p]

      Mid and high handicapped golfers are happy coming away with a bogey in most cases. Their pars are our birdies.  
      Provide a defensive weak point which is not in line with the primary line of attack. This would be the preferrred target for them. From there, the line to the green should be challenging enough that it is not a simple up and down for the good golfer.
       Manufacture grain into putting surfaces.
       Drainage should be to the sides or the back, not to the front, slopes should not be backstops.

[johnk]

Do what MacKenzie did at Pasatiempo.

Greens at an angle to fairway, presenting narrow profiles from most angles.  Mid and back pin positions generally tougher than front pins.  Greens guarded by sloping surrounds and deep bunkers.  Penalize the lack of fine distance control and/or accuracy.  Greens #1, #4, #6, #9, #11, #13, #14 are all good examples of this style

On the greens that are "square" to the fairway, provide narrow areas for keeping ball below hole.  Eg. Greens #10, #17, #18

Then for fun, build a couple of clover-leaf greens so the pins can be tucked on tongues like #13, #16.

[John Shimp]

Create enough pin locations on the greens that effectively repel the ball.  Greens like these tend to have gradual high points that slope away in all directions or false fronts that allow the pin to be placed close enough to them to make pitching/chipping it close tough. Green speed must be fast enough to require a solidly hit short shot whether it be a low or high one.  Pinehurst 2 is a severe example but so are the greens at a shorter course like Cape Arundel.  

Some new designs I've seen recently have greens that look tough with lots of undulations all over the place but the practical pin positions on these tend to be in gathering locations as opposed repelling.  A couple of examples are Fazio's Vaquero in Dallas and Old North State in NC.

[wsmorrison]

Peter,  I'm with you on the grain point.  That is certainly true for classic courses where the membership has a history of championship golf and whose course may have slipped a bit in terms of challenge due to technology and lengthening constraints.  As Tom Paul has been advocating for a long time now, firm greens that lightly dent would maintain a championship quality and difficulty which would identify strategic players as well as better ball strikers.  Greens under these conditions with grain would raise the challenge to a terrific degree.  All of these would mean the current overwhelming advantage of length would be reduced.  Yet it would be great at just about every classic club.  Hopefully this will be part of the revolution.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Does firming up the green surfaces unduly penalize the less talented player? I don't know if I'd say it UNDULY penalizes them but of course it would make holding approach shots on the green more difficult for them. The answer to that for lesser players as well as the better player is simply to recognize that they too must learn to play different shots into the greens than they've become used to in the past when green surfaces were very soft and receptive (pitch marks that pull up dirt and result in a ball stopping dead on the green or sucking back with good players).

What are those different shots most everyone will need to learn to play with firmer green surfaces? Better players need to learn that well struck shots from the fairway rather than the rough will take on more of a strategic premium. Less talented players will need to learn that they may need to use open approaches to bounce the ball into the green more often (maintenance practices that call for firmer green surfaces also need to provide firmer approach area conditions to compensate and offer an alternative or additional option for the less receptive green surfaces).

The only true problem with this over-all prescription is those few holes on most courses that have forced carries for all to the green surface (ie an old course such as Merion's has an inordinatie amount of those in #3, 4, 8, 11, 13, 16, as PVGC has an inordinate amount of those for a very old golf course---eg those courses were designed for the "shot testing" philosophy of that early time on some championship caliber courses).

This is a real problem for players like the little old lady with her heaven wood but we're working on it. One answer is a slight upping of the receptiveness of greens like that but which will putt and chip pretty much identically to the rest.

[JESII]

The only true problem with this over-all prescription is those few holes on most courses that have forced carries for all to the green surface (ie an old course such as Merion's has an inordinatie amount of those in #3, 4, 8, 11, 13, 16, as PVGC has an inordinate amount of those for a very old golf course---eg those courses were designed for the "shot testing" philosophy of that early time on some championship caliber courses).

This is a real problem for players like the little old lady with her heaven wood but we're working on it. One answer is a slight upping of the receptiveness of greens like that but which will putt and chip pretty much identically to the rest.

Say what??

Explain this one a little further if you don't mind, "slight upping of the receptiveness of greens like that but which will putt and chip pretty much identically to the rest"

[TEPaul]

Sully:

Yes, that doesn't have to be done but if there are an inordinant amount of complains from that contingent it can be done to an extent that can have a noticeable effect. Just a tad more water (regular irrigation)  on those kinds of problem surfaces can make them slightly more receptive to the forced aerial shot but they will putt and chip similarly to the rest. Don't kid yourself---the USGA and some of the sophisticated maintenance departments already know how to do this. You don't think they were out there syringing the 7th green at Shinnecock on Open Sunday just because they thought that green was the only one that might die, do you?  

[Jerry Kluger]

Build a course like Hidden Creek.  The trouble around the greens is not unduly severe but the greens are another story.  However, if the mid to high handicapper is a member of the course and plays it on a regular basis he will recognize that he has to try and get the ball to a certain area of the green and not always shoot for that area from a distance where he cannot make the shot.  He also has to recognize that he will have to learn how to lag putt which is something which you can practice and improve without spending hours on lessons.

In other words, with a little course management he can enjoy the course while it still can defend par with respect to the better players.

[Patrick_Mucci]

[size=x4]
Without unduly penalizing the mid to high handicap player ?[/size]

[JESII]

Pat,

Please explain "unduly penalizing".

I agree, difficulty and challenge increase exponentially at the green end when considering low handicaps versus high, but I define undue penalty as unavoidable or overly penal. I don't see any of the examples above as overly penal, do you?

[TEPaul]

Pat

Perhaps to answer your question better, for starters, what, if anything, would you suggest regarding architecture or maintenance practices that would not unduly penalize the mid to high handicap player?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

If you fortify your green and surrounds every level of player must contend with that.

If you have a fairway bunker at 270 yards only the best players, the longest hitters have to contend with it.

So, there's a control factor.
The architect can decide what features will interface with the golfer.

Once you default to the green end, ALL golfers must contend with what's been created.  And because of that, I don't think that's where the focus should be because it unduly taxes those with less ability, it forces them to confront it on equal terms with the best players in the world, or at the club level.

TEPaul,

For starters, staggered bunkers and presenting different angles of attack that contain more favorable risk-reward factors for the mid to high handicap player.

I see very few golf courses today that allow for the mid to higher handicap to choose alternate angles of attack that allow them to make bogie or challenge par.

Even olde courses have been altered, vis a vis maintainance or architecturally to take away these options.

[JESII]

I do not think lesser players want the challenge of the game eliminated.

The fact that:
"Once you default to the green end, ALL golfers must contend with what's been created."
Is what makes the method so good.

Noone is proposing insanely contoured greens maintained at a speed the bogeyman cannot handle, rather positioning the green in such a way that the 300 yard driver has a difficult time lofting his wedge next to the hole. It is also possible to design the approach to allow the short approach third shot of the lesser player a realistic shot at par and fairly safe bogey barring a major miscue.

See #8 at Shinnecock.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

The golfer who launches his drive 300+ yards and has a wedge into a green has no challenge.

Like the Maginot Line, the defense of the hole is obsolete.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

JES II,

The golfer who launches his drive 300+ yards and has a wedge into a green has no challenge.

Pat-

  I don't know if that statement is 100% accurate.  First, you still have to hit the green.  I don't have the stats close at hand, but I feel pretty safe in saying that even the best players in the world don't hit the green 100% of the time with wedge in hand.  

Next, depending on the course, the green(s) may be such that just hitting the green is not enough; one must be in the proper area of the green to have a reasonable two-putt.  A specific example of this can be seen at Merion, on the 15th, for one example.  Standing next to Kyle and Tom Paul, they witnessed my disbelief at the amount of break in a 15-foot putt needed to be played for a right-center hole location.  Another example is Augusta National.  I recall very well an interview with Norman where he said that one must be in the proper part of the green to have a chance to two-putt.  

I remember several holes at Rolling Green which were like that as well-#1 (big green, contours), #13 (angle, small green) I remember most of those greens being tough to putt!  (No comments, Wayne!   )

Lastly, you still have to make the putt.  

I think another example can be seen at Hidden Creek's 5th, as well as other holes on the course.  The day we played it was putting a little slower (early in the year, still recovering from aeration) but I recall again; if you were at the back of the green (like I was), putting to a front hole location was a challenge!  

Same with the Redan hole.  (#4).  I remember hitting a first putt on the line that looked correct--and it wasn't!  Which is fine.  

So, to answer your question of defending par at the green, one answer would be to make players play break through imaginative green contouring.

We could take this a step further and cite Pinehurst #2.  Ross' original intentions or not, the approach shot is made difficult through the design of the green complexes.  

Other courses have green complexes where missing in certain spots, with certain hole locations, is suicide.  Again, this goes back to green contouring.  I remember #7 at Congressional Gold, among others, being like this.  Missing short, to front hole locations, and the ball will roll back down the hill a good 20 yards.  I speak from experience.  

Small greens-tighter target to hit.  Oftentimes an easier up and down, but still a little harder to hit in order to have birdie putts.  

I think the final thing I will mention for now, and this can be a subset of playing break or greens that break--is the opposite--greens that LOOK like they break, but DON'T.  I'm sure most of us here have played courses like that.  I recall #14 at Columbia CC being like this.  

The opposite then, and I found this at Burning Tree, among other places, were greens that look like they don't break--but do!  How frustrating.  "But I hit a good putt!"  

[Tim Bert]

I think that Pinehurst #2 provides a fine example of how to defend par at the green without unduly penalizing the mid-to-high handicapper.

I'm a 14 handicap (and often play resort golf like an 18 or worse.)  I played two rounds there, and didn't lose a ball either round.  With out of bounds not too tight and no water to speak of, I was able to get around the green in regulation.  From there, the challenge at #2 is getting the ball close enough to get up and down, but I don't think it is necessarily all that difficult to home in 3 from most spots around the green (if that is what you are playing for.)  That gives the mid-handicapper a pretty fair shot in my mind.

I certainly didn't feel like I was pummeled with trouble there like I was at Whistling Straits or many of the desert courses I've played, for instance.  Yet #2 still seems to maintain it's reputation as tough course at which to score for good golfers.

I've heard similar things about TOC (that higher handicappers don't find it as difficult to shoot their handicap there as lower handicappers) though I have no idea if this has anything to do with defense around the green since I have no firsthand knowledge of TOC.

[Doug Siebert]

Create enough pin locations on the greens that effectively repel the ball.  Greens like these tend to have gradual high points that slope away in all directions or false fronts that allow the pin to be placed close enough to them to make pitching/chipping it close tough. Green speed must be fast enough to require a solidly hit short shot whether it be a low or high one.  Pinehurst 2 is a severe example but so are the greens at a shorter course like Cape Arundel.  

Some new designs I've seen recently have greens that look tough with lots of undulations all over the place but the practical pin positions on these tend to be in gathering locations as opposed repelling.  A couple of examples are Fazio's Vaquero in Dallas and Old North State in NC.

I don't think its necessary to repel the ball, just have enough slope to get the ball moving.  I played one of my favorite local courses today, and it protects par on numerous (there are 6) par 5s with greens that make second shot approaches at the greens quite difficult but a properly placed second hit by a shorter player who has no chance to reach it can result a fairly easy wedge or short iron approach.  Actually its really only necessary for them to follow the fairway since it pretty much shows the way to the easier shot, but since the center of the fairway isn't the shortest path to the green most players play themselves into the worst angle when the strategy is sitting right there in front of them!

Several holes have mounding around the greens that continues onto the green surface leaving a kind of ridged semi-punch bowl effect.  It sounds like they are gathering but what they really do is make it very hard to avoid having the ball roll 10-40 feet by as it just won't slow down and just keeps as it passes the hole -- but it isn't so fast that putting from above the hole makes you think you're staring a three putt in the face.  Its just that hitting a middle iron from 200 yards and having about 20 foot deep area where it will land on the green and stay there is no easy task (and that's just to stay on the green, not get close enough to do better than just two putt), nor is a little flop out of the rough where you are coming down that hill, or from the side and needing to land it on about a 3'x3' area to get it close.

What really surprised me is that today the greens were as soft as I'd ever seen them and they are stimping at maybe 10 at the most but the ball still just does the craziest things on approaches and short shots around the green when you aren't playing from the proper angle.  And this is on a course with only two bunkers, and the one of those that is greenside is behind a par 3 and doesn't even really come into play!

This course can certainly be had by good players (well, with 6 par 5s how could it not?) but probably only half the greens are really "strong", the other half are more moderate.  I could well imagine taking the strongest of those greens, when they are as firm as they typically are with hardly any ball mark possible and giving them a bit more speed and even without bunkers they'd do quite well at defending par on just about any course.

[TEPaul]

John Shimp:

Interesting what you said about greens that repel the ball. That you said that, it occurs to me that some of the most interesting greens I'm aware of both repel and collect the ball depending where you hit the ball on them. The examples of that are just endless on some of the best greens on some of the best courses we all talk about so often on here---eg Merion, NGLA, PVGC, Oakmont, Seminole, Sand Hills etc.

[Kyle Harris]

It seems that a lot of people mention a "cause and effect" in regard to green surroundings.

Green surroundings are more deadly when the green itself is severely contoured or places a premium on angle.

Inversely, a hole like a punchbowl may have severe surroundings with a generally benign green.

I feel the latter case may be more reasonable for the high handicap player, however, it may not be punitive enough for the low handicapper or pro.

Such internal features like grain and green speed may make the difference.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Doug Braunsdorf,

What you and others are missing is the following:

If it's a challenge for the better player to hit a wedge into a green, how much greater is the challenge for a lesser player to hit a 4-iron or 3-wood nto the same green ?

It is exponentially more difficult, and thus, unduly weighted against the mid to high handicap player.

If you make it difficult for the better player, it becomes difficult, by multiples, for the lesser player.

[ForkaB]

Pat

We are not missing anything--you are, buckaroo!

If there is a difficult greensite (for arguments sake, let's just say it's the 2nd at the Old Course with a front left pin), the elite player, with a wedge in his hand and THINKING birdie, will in fact have a MORE diffficult shot than the bogey player hitting a mid-long iron and just hoping to get somewhere near the green.  In such circumstances, I would say that the chances of the bogey player making bogey are greater than the chances of the scratch player making par.  Why? Well, his expectations are lower and the ability to get reasonably close (10-20 feet) in 3 from someone expecting bogey is much higher than one getting trying to to the smae place if he is hoping for birdie.

I personally think that the great courses kill the hackers at their midpoints, rather than around the greens.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

Your argument fails because it just considers the extreme example of pitting a zero to plus handicap against an 18 handicap, conveniently forgetting about all of those in between, many of whom will attempt to get to the hole location that day on their approach shot.

If it's difficult for the low handicap, then it has to be far more difficult for the higher handicap.

The other thing you fail to recognize is that the higher handicap, the 18 that you reference, can't execute with a high degree of success, his second shot, hence his third shot may be the same wedge shot that the low handicap faced, and, the higher handicap is far less able to negotiate that shot.

[ForkaB]

Pat

You (continuously, alas ) fail  to understand that golf, like the rest of the world and life , consists of continua, and not just shades of black and white, and that perspective is relative..........

Other than that, you are perfect!