Flat Greens, Some Questions

[Peter Pallotta]

I like flat greens.

Not 18 in a row, all tilted back to front, mind you; but I like them more than as just an occasional relief from the more undulating greens, especially if one tilts front to back, and the next left to right, and the next back to front, and so on.

The earlier thread about shrinking pin positions and increased green speeds brought this to mind.  In current gca thinking, is there something inherently wrong with having a majority of flat greens on any given 18?

To me, they seem somehow more fair, especially for a public course player. I like putting on them, whether they're running fast or slow. I think I can (occasionally) read them pretty well.  And, while they're not as fun in a roller-coaster sort of way as big, undulating greens, even the flattest-seeming green has subtle breaks, and it's fun to be able to make a putt every once in a while.  

Can flat greens ever make a comeback, in the sense that they'll be regarded every bit as valid and good as undulating greens? (Are they currently so regarded?) With increased green speeds, will form follow function and make them a very popular choice? Is the alternative (i.e. undulating but shrinking greens) as much an aesthetic choice as anything else?

Also, flat greens seem to me more natural somehow (but maybe it's just that I've got a picture in my head of some big, flat British Isles' greens).  But when I think of Augusta National, for example, I think of a course that was always intended for 'private' use.  Is this one of the reasons for the design of the undulating greens there (and their popularity at other private courses), i.e. that at a course designed for play by the same members, every day, it's necessary to make the greens a continual source of discovery/challenge?

Thanks
Peter

[David Kelly]

Can flat greens ever make a comeback, in the sense that they'll be regarded every bit as valid and good as undulating greens? (Are they currently so regarded?)

Make a comeback? Flat greens are regarded by many golfers as being more valid than rolling, contoured greens.  I play a lot of golf at Rustic Canyon and I can't tell you how many times I have been paired with people who make comments about the greens that liken them to miniature golf greens.  Comments like "where's the clown's mouth"  and that the greens are unfair.

Also, flat greens seem to me more natural somehow (but maybe it's just that I've got a picture in my head of some big, flat British Isles' greens).  

What British Isles greens would those be?

[Brent Hutto]

The main problem with flat greens is they're boring. Get the putter aimed at the hole, make the right length stroke, wait and see if it goes in the hole. The only way to judge an approach shot is by how far it is from the hole. There are no "easy putts" and "hard putts" just 10-footer or 2-footers or whatever.

Isn't preferring flat greens a little like saying you'd rather a hole not have any bunkers or hazards? Just a fairway, maybe some rough along the edges and a green. It's always perfectly fair, if you hit it straight off the tee and hit it the right distance from the fairway you'll have a short putt which means it's as easy as can be for high handicappers.

Personally, I contoured greens and contoured fairways and elevation changes and all the things that make one shot (or putt) harder than another. Then you can start stringing things together and before you know it you have strategy. Maybe it's better to have a 20-foot putt from straight below the hole than an 8-footer with two feet of break. And maybe keeping the ball below the hole is easier if you hit your approach from the correct side of the fairway. And maybe that side of the fairway means carrying a fairway bunker or flirting with long rough.

With a dead-flat green all that goes away. Aim for the fat part of the fairway and then aim at the hole and make your best swing. You'll either hit it close or far and that will determine your chances of rolling in whatever distance of straightish putt you end up with. Blah!

[Andy Troeger]

Interestingly enough...the flattest greens I remember playing were at the course where I took my PAT a few years ago. They put all the pins in the middle of the greens and they were generally pretty flat, but I couldn't make a putt to save my life! (not surprising unfortunately  )

Then of course on the 35th hole of the day I had to make a downhill 6 footer on the one severely sloped green of the day knowing that the putt was gone if I missed, and I drained it and parred the last hole to qualify on the number.

Apologies for the tangent...I guess that whole thing means I like contoured greens  

[Peter Pallotta]

David:
I wasn't asking about the views of the "many golfers" you refer to, but asking a sincere question about the seeming consensus among gca aficionados today that heavily contoured greens are more valid than flat greens (and if that was always the case, and why it is the case now).  

I never said I didn't like contoured greens; I do. But I was wondering why some top flight architects today seem to be so adverse to flat greens. I tend to enjoy them, and I don't see any reason to dislike them so much. Also, it always seemed to me (from tv) that a goodly number of greens at the Old Course have big, flat sections, and at Turnberry too.

Brent:
I understand your point of view, but I’ve rarely been on a green, flat or otherwise, when it didn't matter where you hit your approach shot. There is always some kind of break, uphill, downhill, sideways. Also, high handicapper or not, I can appreciate hitting a mediocre approach 50 feet from the pin, and still having a chance to two-putt.

Andy: I know you're not exactly agreeing with me, but see - those 'flat' greens aren't as easy as we tend to make them out to be

Peter  
Btw, by flat I mean without pronounced undulations, not dead parallel to the horizon.  

 

[Paul_Turner]

Peter

Nobody has the guts to throw in a dead flat green anymore, from fear of being "boring".

[Gary Daughters]

My friend Denis Griffiths designs "flat" greens, and we've gone round and round on the subject several times.  I still don't get it.  He'll tilt the things and run ridges through them, but no prominent undulations.  

The funny thing about his "flat" greens is, you never get a straight putt.  Never.  And the ball will break in ways that are extremely difficult to conceive.  I think there's hidden genius in there somewhere, which I do respect.  And I do agree with Denis that a "flat" green is harder to read than one more prominently defined.

I may come around, but right now I think contour is more fun.

[Andy Troeger]

Peter,
  Goofy story aside...I don't completely disagree either. While I wouldn't want to play a course with 18 flat greens, sometimes I think green contours can be a little much as well. I'm probably more in the middle than the average of the group here (which prefers more contour). With my putting stroke it really doesn't make much difference...sometimes I get lucky!

[Andy Troeger]

The funny thing about his "flat" greens is, you never get a straight putt.  Never.  And the ball will break in ways that are extremely difficult to conceive.  I think there's hidden genius in there somewhere, which I do respect.  And I do agree with Denis that a "flat" green is harder to read than one more prominently defined.

Gary,
I think maybe you explained the point of my story...flat greens are really hard to read. The breaks are so subtle that its easy to read them where they are not, and not to read them where they exist

[Brent Hutto]

OK, now we're morphing into a more interesting question...greens with big, bold contours versus greens with subtle breaks. I like subtlety just fine (although I think bold contours like at Tobacco Road are great, too). There's nothing like a putt with just a little hard-to-see break to the left for the first ten feet and then two feet from the hole it flattens out or even has an impossible-to-see tiny break back to the right. Especially if that last little break goes against the prevailing tilt of the property. Little foolers are good.

That said, if you want to use little barely-discernable subtle breaks to provide the interest in a green then we are automatically talking about a requirement to have them rolling at something near PGA Tour speeds, no? Subtlety is no fun if we can override it by just keeping eight footers inside the cup and banging them on a Stimp 7-8 surface. Big contours are almost as much fun at any speed, in fact they have to be kept reasonable to retain hole-location options.

[Gary Daughters]

Here's a quote from DG:

"Flat greens are not flat when they are rolling 11-12 and instead of 8-9"

Much of this obviously is dictated by grass varieties and mowing heights.

[Peter Pallotta]

Brent,
in my mind that was always the question, though I must not have made it clear. It just seemed to me that the current trend was much in favour of "greens with big, bold contours" versus ones with "subtle breaks", which I described as flat. I was wondering why that was the case.

Fast or slow I still find "flat" greens fun to put. For me at least it takes a lot of confidence and skill (often more than I have) to try to take the break out of a putt by banging it in, even on a Stimp 7-8. And when they're fast, well, then they're fast, flat or not.

Peter
Gary, Paul Turner - thanks as well.