A discussion regarding the importance of putting in the modern game

[Ted Kramer]

Come on Ted - you're talking 1,000 yard holes.  It will all come down to how far you hit your driver and fairway woods.  You'll take away the putting, but you'll also take away most of the rest of the short game too.

I don't see why you can't imagine something like this:

Hole 1 (straight away 900 yards)
Driver - 300
3wd - 230
***170 yards left to the green***
6 iron

Hole 2 (Double Dog Leg 830 yards)
Driver - 260 (dog leg forces a positional play)
5 iron - 200 (to the corner of the 2nd dog leg)
***370 yards left to the green***
3 wd - 230
9 iron - 140

Why do the holes have to come down to how far you can hit driver and fairway woods? Can't the holes be routed in a way that forces some shot making? Couldn't dog legs, angles, hazards, elevation changes, cross hazards, etc., be used in interesting combinations to force or promote creative play?

I'm not suggesting a bunch of 1,200 yard bowling lanes.

-Ted

[Ted Kramer]

Do you think that creating a situation where an "average Joe" can compete with a "good player" is something to aspire towards?

-Ted

Yes I do. why not? The scorecard asks how many, not how.
If an average joe can putt better than the good player, who is the good player?
If a great putter struggles off the tee, and with his irons on approach, is he a bad player?

Good answer.
I just wouldn't refer to someone who can putt better than a "good player" an "avergae Joe" . . .
I don't want this to become a arguement over semantics, I undersatnd your point.

I'm only trying to point out that being a great putter might count for a lot more now than it did 100 years ago and I'm not sure that I like that shift.

-Ted

[Brent Hutto]

Ted,

The game has always favored the player who can hit it longer and higher. It appears to most people that longer and higher is an even bigger advantage now than in the past. If you design golf courses to have 600 or 800 or even 1,500 yard holes the premium on hitting it longer and higher will be huge no matter how you lay them out (unless you use the reductio ad absurdum of a series of 150-yard shots to tiny island targets). It is fiendishly hard to make an extremely long hole that isn't much easier for a long hitter than a short hitter.

It seems to me the logical extension of your idea of having several discrete targets, connected by doglegs and hazards and rough and whatever sounds a lot like a golf course. In effect, the game you're describing is nearly equivalent to playing a regular course except instead of putting on each green just hitting to the next hole and putting on every third or fourth green.

If you think about it, the came could just as easily evolved into one where you took full-swing whacks at a ball and stopped once you gained a target as big as the side of a barn. Over the history of golf, the majority of golfers must have preferred a game where there was some fine motor skill involved in addition to full whacks.

[Ted Kramer]

Ted,

The game has always favored the player who can hit it longer and higher. It appears to most people that longer and higher is an even bigger advantage now than in the past. If you design golf courses to have 600 or 800 or even 1,500 yard holes the premium on hitting it longer and higher will be huge no matter how you lay them out (unless you use the reductio ad absurdum of a series of 150-yard shots to tiny island targets). It is fiendishly hard to make an extremely long hole that isn't much easier for a long hitter than a short hitter.

It seems to me the logical extension of your idea of having several discrete targets, connected by doglegs and hazards and rough and whatever sounds a lot like a golf course. In effect, the game you're describing is nearly equivalent to playing a regular course except instead of putting on each green just hitting to the next hole and putting on every third or fourth green. . . .

Very well said.
You're description of playing a regular course and putting on every third or fourth green is a lot like what I've had in mind.

-Ted

[Sean_A]

Ted

I am not sure there is a greater emphasis on putting compared to "the old days".  It may be true, I just don't know enough about the subject.  For many of the great players, putting seems to be a problem in the latter stages of their career.  The rings true as much today as yesteryear.

I agree that it is probably true that more long putts are made because of improved conditions and that putting has become a stuidied "art" in a manner that wasn't true of golf before robots hit the tour.  However, every aspect of the game has become a studied "art".  So putting importance may not have changed relative to shots through the green.  It would be interesting to see a comparison of putting as a percentage of shots taken from several eras.    

I, for one (at least for the Joe Bloggs of this world) would like to see green speeds slowed way down.  I am not sure why people feel it is necessary to get greens rolling over 9.  Perhaps this would lessen the "importance" of putting.  I don't think so, but I can understand people arguing the opposite.  The speeds of greens are rarely mentioned as one of the culprits of slowing the game down, but I am sure it is true.  

Ciao

Sean

[TEPaul]

"I only wonder if the evolution of the game has placed more emphasis on putting than was originally there."

Ted:

When you wonder if the evolution of the game has placed more emphasis on putting than was orginally there do you even know what the orgins of what's considered to be putting are? Do you, for instance, know what the evolution of what's considered to be the "putting green" (perhaps once called the "greensward") are? Did you know that until relatively recently in relation to the entire history and evolution of the game the putting green was considered to be everything within 20 yards of the hole or cup excluding hazards?

[Ted Kramer]

"I only wonder if the evolution of the game has placed more emphasis on putting than was originally there."

Ted:

When you wonder if the evolution of the game has placed more emphasis on putting than was orginally there do you even know what the orgins of what's considered to be putting are? Do you, for instance, know what the evolution of what's considered to be the "putting green" (perhaps once called the "greensward") are? Did you know that until relatively recently in relation to the entire history and evolution of the game the putting green was considered to be everything within 20 yards of the hole or cup excluding hazards?

I am certainly no expert or authority when it comes to any kind of golf related history. Being that you seem to know an awful lot about the history of the game, I'd like to ask for your opinion:

Mr Paul,

Do you think that putting plays a larger role in determining who wins and loses in golf today when compared to it's role in determining wins and losses in the game played years ago?

And if you believe that putting has gained in importance . . .
do you like that change?

-Ted

[Steve Lang]

 

Wasn't Hogan only considered an average putter compared to his prowess at "hitting" the ball?  Why would his comment be looked at as anything other than common player "bias" or lamenting?..

[TEPaul]

Ted Kramer asked:

"Mr Paul,
Do you think that putting plays a larger role in determining who wins and loses in golf today when compared to it's role in determining wins and losses in the game played years ago?"

Ted:

I wouldn't really know how to go about comparing something like that. I do know that putting and certainly the area used for or considered to be for putting has changed a great deal in the last 200 years in golf, and frankly a good deal in the last 100 years and even in the last 50 years. I also know that in golf anything considered to be a stroke in golf has always counted the same amount and I do think the fact a 300 yard drive and a one inch putt count for the same thing is perhaps so much of the essence of the game as to be almost never thought about and I think that fact is and always has been one of the true uniquenesses and perhaps fascinations with the game of golf.

For any player to be considered truly good or great I feel he should more than understand that fact or essence of golf.

You asked:

"And if you believe that putting has gained in importance . . .
do you like that change?"

Since I don't know how to compare any change as to give one era some decided edge over another era in importance in putting, again, I don't know how to answer that.

The only truly intelligent proposal for changing the stroke value of putting I've ever seen came from architect George Thomas. He called for putting to be given a value of 1/2 stroke. Although he may've thought putting played too great a roll in golf (he calculated it was app 50% of the strokes of a good round) he really seems to have made the proposal so that it might make it more possible to build more economical golf courses and particularly golf holes in the "half-par" range by basically making it unnecessary to use so many bunkers and such around shorter holes.

But if one reads Thomas's 1/2 strokes for putts very carefully I believe one can see that his idea does have the effect of giving a decided edge to good golfers as opposed to the way the game is now and has always been---eg all strokes count the same amount.

[Tom_Doak]

The interesting thing about Thomas' take on making putts count a half stroke was that he intended it to make golf architecture much simpler.  One of his diagrams on the very subject showed what is basically the tenth hole at Riviera ... with the half-stroke putting scores, there was no real reason to guard the green with bunkers, because if you didn't hold the green you were at best going to score 3 1/2 and if you held it you would nearly always beat that.

The problem with this method is that it does reduce the scoring of the game to a much more arbitrary target game ... missing the green by two feet basically costs you a half stroke, so you would usually be better off just playing for the center of greens than attacking a hole location near the edge.  Architects would have responded to that by building a bunch of very small greens ... again reducing the cost of design, but providing less variety and interest for the average player.

It is an interesting concept, but I'm a traditionalist at heart, and I do think the game is about getting the ball in the hole and not just onto the green.

[Tom_Doak]

Ted,

As to your question about whether putting is more or less important than it used to be ... I don't think it's much different.  In the old days there were a lot of two-putt greens and a fair number of three putts caused by inconsistent turf.  Today those same outcomes result from faster green speeds and more contour.

Good ball-strikers lament that tournament play comes down to who makes a few more putts any given week, but I disagree ... if they can consistently hit it closer to the hole all week, shouldn't they have better odds of holing more putts?

[TEPaul]

"The problem with this method is that it does reduce the scoring of the game to a much more arbitrary target game ... missing the green by two feet basically costs you a half stroke, so you would usually be better off just playing for the center of greens than attacking a hole location near the edge.  Architects would have responded to that by building a bunch of very small greens ..."

TomD:

That's a very interesting point about Thomas's proposal I'd sure never thought of. But I guess as most generally say---you have to draw the line somewhere.    

[TEPaul]

"I'd like to see a couse set up at 6,800 yards with only 6 holes.
Those six holes can wind and twist and turn and move all over the place. But with only 6 greens; ball striking, shot shaping, and shot making would most certainly rise in importance relative to putting . . ."

Ted:

The idea of actually building a golf course of around 6,800 yards with only six holes on it I think would be absolutely doomed to total failure. While I completely understand what you're saying here and why something like that would most likely be deemed to be some hair-brained novelty.

For starters the fundamentals of any golf course just seem to me so totally fixed by tradition at this point---eg eighteen holes et al.

I do have a compromise idea for you, though, which could, in effect, do what you're suggesting. That's the concept of what I've sometimes called on here "courses within a course". In other words, given the right kind of site---eg generally pretty light on trees and some interesting topography, I think it would be possible to design an alternate course of six or so holes on 6,800 yards that would be contained within a regulation course of 18 holes. Fairway width and stuff might need to be expanded, though, for obvious reasons.

Ironically, the basic concept of "courses within a course" was another of the unusual concepts from the mind of the ultra creative and imaginative George Thomas.

[ForkaB]

Tom, et. al.

If you look over to the thread that started this all, I show how one well-known course could play as an exhilirating  6-holer.........

[TEPaul]

Rich:

That's right. That's the idea. What I'm talking about though would be something ("courses within a course") the architect would get involved in an alternate routing and designing sense.

[Ted Kramer]

The course within a course idea is excellent . . .
I wouldn't think that a 6 hole 6800 yard course could work in golf today, that was simply an example of one of the thoughts that have crossed my mind when I think about reducing the importance of putting in today's game . . .

And just for the record, I got crushed in my Club Champ yesterday.
I lost 5 and 4.
While I didn't exactly putt great, I lost the match off the tee.
My ideas about putting do not come from a yippee, twitchy guy looking to win more matches, I just think of golf as a ball striking game more than a putting contest.

And while I think that I'm more a traditionalist than a revolutionary, and while I wouldn't make wholesale changes to the game I love so much, I do think about things like this all the time.

I also wonder what baseball would be like if 1st base was 100 ft from home plate instead of 90ft.

Thanks for all of the responses thus far.

-Ted

[TEPaul]

Ted:

Maybe 10-15 years ago I used to think much more the way you apparently do about the game---eg there are some things that should change about it that can make it better.

And so I began to lobby the USGA for an actual rules change (Rule 10-1a--the "Honor" in Match Play to make it optional).

I felt this would make the game more psychological and more interesting because of that. I also wondered what the initial purpose of the "Honor" was, and ironically there was no one in the USGA or R&A who could tell me with assurance. My proposal actually went through two quadrennial joint rules meetings (USGA & R&A) and still no one could tell me what the exact purpose of the Honor was or why the "Honor" was the way it was.

Finally, in frustration, I guess, they asked me to call Joe Dey who at that point was a very old man. They all said he knew more about these kinds of things than anyone on earth. They said they'd not called him because they didn't want to bother him and that they knew he definitely wasn't for a proposal like this.

And so I did call him. He said to me right off the bat:

"Mr. Paul, I've heard about this proposal of yours and I completely oppose it. Margaret Curtis proposed it some decades ago and I saw to it that she was turned down and if anyone asks me at this point I'd suggest they turn you down too." (which they did--twice).

And then he said:

"Mr Paul, the game of golf has come along to us through the ages just fine and we should leave it just the way it is."

That certainly got my attention, and then Joe Dey took about the next half hour to tell me exactly why the "Honor" was the way it was, how it originated, what the exact purpose of it was and wasn't and even the etymology of the word itself.

At that point, the conversation was over, we hung up and I wrote a letter to the USGA/R&A officially pulling my proposal out of further consideration. I did that out of complete respect for Joe Dey and all he said about the game of golf, its history, its rules and its on-going tradtions.

On the other hand, the USGA/R&A gets into the subject of golf architecture perhaps a lot less than most of us think they do or should. I still haven't decided if that is ultimately a good thing or a bad thing. The thing they most definitely will get involved in, though, is if anything is done to the game that alters the official rules of the way it's played---and I guess has been played for many, many years. And to them, I know, that would include both the value (in a stroke context) of putting as well as the eighteen hole format of match or stroke play.

However, if some architect could see his way clear to designing some alternate routing of six holes within a conventional 6,800 yard golf course where a hole may be 50 yards and another hole 900 yards I'd certainly be interested in seeing it, in studying it, and in playing it.  

[Peter Galea]

Putting IS the ultimate ground game.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Ted,
I was looking at some Tour stats pertaining to putting and here's what I found:  
-The total # of putts per round for the number #1 player in 1980 would place him 60th in 2004.
-The player with the #1 putting avg. in 1986 would place 9th in 2004.
-The player who was #1 in avg birdies per round in 1980 would be 37th in 2004.
-The player who was #1 in birdie conversions in 1980 would be  19th in 2004.
-Driving distance has gone up considerably.
-Greens in regulation has not seen much change in these years.

It seems to me that if players are continually hitting the same number of greens from a shorter distance away they will be closer more often, ala Hogan, and with the better surface conditions of today they will miss fewer putts.

 
 

 

[Jim Nugent]

Ted,

As to your question about whether putting is more or less important than it used to be ... I don't think it's much different.  In the old days there were a lot of two-putt greens and a fair number of three putts caused by inconsistent turf.  Today those same outcomes result from faster green speeds and more contour.

Good ball-strikers lament that tournament play comes down to who makes a few more putts any given week, but I disagree ... if they can consistently hit it closer to the hole all week, shouldn't they have better odds of holing more putts?

As more support for what you say, Tom, the best putters (statisically) never are the lowest scorers on tour.  They don't win the most tournaments or money.  And it's the names of Tiger Woods, Jack Nicklaus and Ben Hogan that are enshrined as golf immortals.  Not George Archer, Brad Faxon and George Lowe.  

[TEPaul]

"Not George Archer, Brad Faxon and George Lowe."

I guess I could buy that JimN, but I hope you're not going to tell me that Loren Roberts shouldn't be considered one of the greats in the history of the game!    

[Jim Nugent]

"Not George Archer, Brad Faxon and George Lowe."

I guess I could buy that JimN, but I hope you're not going to tell me that Loren Roberts shouldn't be considered one of the greats in the history of the game!    

I'll never forget that long putt Loren almost made on the last hole of his U.S. Open playoff with Els.  Looked like it couldn't miss.  One of the greatest shots under pressure that didn't quite pan out.  

[TEPaul]

JimN:

How true! With top flight tournament and championship golf "almost" seems to be a condition that never quite garners greatness for some odd reason.  

"Almost" and "if" seem to be two of golf's greatest bugaboos!  

(If only they woulda counted putts as 1/2 stroke or made that blasted hole 5" in diameter).

[Tony_Muldoon]

Bobby Jones warmed up at Sunnigdale for the Open Championship and he hit all the Par 3's and 4's in regulation and all the 5's in 2.  He had 2 putts on each green.  His play that day has long been remembered and is often referred to as 'the perfect round'.

In his autobigraphy Sam Torrance, who was an assistant pro there in the 1970's, is rather dismissive of 2 putts per green.

[Brent Hutto]

It seems to me that if players are continually hitting the same number of greens from a shorter distance away they will be closer more often, ala Hogan, and with the better surface conditions of today they will miss fewer putts.

Nice work, Jim. Let me point out one other possible effect. It may well be that Tour players are better putters today than they were in 1980.

The condition of Tour putting greens now is consistently better than it has been at any point in history, so I think it is reasonable to assume that nigh-perfect greens lead to making more putts. However, a second-order effect of that smoothness, speed and trueness of greens as compared to, for instance, the 1950's and 60's is that the most effective putting stroke is different. There was a time when someone who putts like Phil Mickelson or Loren Roberts would not have been effective at getting the ball in the hole on average Tour greens. Likewise, someone with a wristy jabbing or popping stroke that worked well 50 years ago would be at a disadvantage on today's greens.

So here's my point. I think the gradual extinction of a style of putting evolved for shaggy, bumpy, grainy (relative to today's standard) greens corresponds to an average improvement in putting effectiveness. You see almost no players in the world Top 100 today who putt like Arnold Palmer did in his prime. Back in 1980 there were still a lot of those strokes among top players (the older ones especially) and I think it's pretty clear that someone like Zach Johnson who grew up playing on fast, true, smooth greens will make more putts on superfast, superperfect Tour greens.