A limited view ?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Why do we tend to view the contouring of putting greens in the predominant context of putting, and not more in the context of approach and recovery shots ?

In viewing the 6th green at NGLA it's clear that a golfer, not in the same general area as the hole, has his work cut out for him with his putter due to the contours and slopes.

But, those contours and slopes present a far greater challenge to his approach shot and will present a far greater challenge to his recovery shot.

Those contours segment the green and impact strategy and options.

Greens absent substantive internal contours can't offer those challenges without substantive external assistance.

Haven't bland greens lessened the strategic options presented on the approach and recovery shots ?

Haven't architects dumbed down golf courses by omiting substantive contouring in the greens ?

Haven't strategy and options dictated by green contours been abandoned by today's architects ?

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

#1) Who says we do?

#2) Yes

#3) Not all of them

#4) Not entirely

I'll wait and see what others say, as I only have limited, albeit productive, experience in these matters. I haven't played NGLA.

Joe

[tonyt]

One of the topics I love discussed on here is the concept of the green complex negating the formula for par based on regulation plus two putts. And like you say, sure putting becomes tougher, but I also agree it is a more multi dimensional thought when it carries through to make the whole package different in terms of hitting the green in regulation, or more succinctly, playing to the green complex in a manner so as to assist in it then taking fewer strokes to get into the hole.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
Sounds like you read our April article in Golf Tips Magazine titled "the simple truth, About Green Complexes".  This thread is essentially what we covered in our three page column.  

[Peter Sayegh]

I've never played NGLA or many of the finer courses discussed here.
Regarding green contours, what is the percentage of GIR of say a 5/10/15/20 handicap player? I'm just under a thirteen and freely admit LANDING on the green is my major concern unless I'm in great position to attack. How many are playing with regards to angles or contours? So most of the time I'm not considering green contours-yet. Play the shot at hand, right?

That being said, I do think the recovery/putting strategy has been diminished. Once near the green complex, a myriad of options and challenges should be available.

I don't have the data, but assuming most amateurs miss...7,8,9,10 greens, I believe greater contours of the green would be more prevalent. Amateurs (and I do) would view it as a "different" game-the one played in sight of the hole.

In summary, I don't mind missing greens. Challenge my game to the end. Bumps and hollows only add to the allure.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Read your initial post again and as you do, particularly the part about external green features taking over for internal contours to challenge both approaching, recoverying, even putting---just keep thinking ANGC, ANGC, ANGC!

The way that golf course was designed (and mostly still is) could be one of the most remarkably breakthroughs in all golf architectural philosophy and concept.

The course was designed and built with 22 bunkers!! Are you kidding me? That's little more than one bunker a hole.

It's all about green shape, internal green contours, green surface slope and mostly short grass around the greens that the greens bleed off into with slope. Approaches can stay on some greens but be in places that two-putting isn't likely or they can slip off the greens onto short grass where recoverying to certain pins isn't likely either.

What could be more strategic and simplistically sublme than that? That concept and philosophy can go with a real minimum of bunkers, and it does not need narrowness of fairways, it does not need rough, and it does not need trees to work strategically and challenging.

Bob Crosby is still doing his research on that course and I think he feels it just may've been one of the real breakthrough concepts and strategic philosophies ever conceived of and tried. I'm very much beginning to believe him on that. But the ironies are---apparently that breakthrough concept and philosophy was largely misunderstood and is getting more so as time goes by.  

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Peter Sayegh,

The 6th at NGLA plays from about 125 to 139 from an elevated tee, so the distance isn't overwhelming to any golfer.

But, the internal contouring is phenomenal.

Picture a donut placed ontop of a potato chip.

Or, buy George Bahto's book, "The Evangelist of Golf"

This is one green where a GIR means little.
You have to hit the segment of the green where the hole is located, otherwise 3 putts or more are almost guaranteed.

And, should you miss the green, recovery can be an enormous task.

While putting is challenging, the approach is far more significant on a fairly short hole.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Royal Ashdown Forest has NO bunkers and frankly doesn't need any.  I wouldn't call Augusta National a "breakthough" in golf course architecture.  Sounds a little too "American" to me  

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Pat,
Sounds like you read our April article in Golf Tips Magazine titled "the simple truth, About Green Complexes".  This thread is essentially what we covered in our three page column.  

Mark,

I didn't read the column and don't have access to the magazine.

Could you post it for us ?

Thanks.

TEPaul,

You have to consider the scale of the bunkers at ANGC when analyzing their numbers.

They tend to be massive.[/color]

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
I still don't have access to digital copies (we should soon and when we do, I will post some of the articles).  You can get the magazine at a Barnes & Nobel, or Borders or even at a Wegman's if you have one of those stores in your area.  All the airport magazine shops carry them as well.  Pick up a copy when you are traveling.