[Ian Larson]

...isnt this how it used to be on classic courses?

...and isnt this what I always read here on GCA that modern architecture should revert back to?

...and after reading all the criticisms about these greens the past few days, what is so wrong with them?



Im watching a little of the match play and these greens look really cool to me. I love the movement. I love the shelves. And I love how the greens are really making these guys think about the shot placement.

I always read and hear about classic greens being renovated and softened due to modern cutting heights and green speeds much to the disdain of classic architecture enthusiasts, which includes me.

Im also hearing, especially on the broadcast, how slow the greens are. And appropriately so because of how undulating they are. The number being thrown out there is 10 1/2 feet. On the slow end by PGA standards.

The reason for me posting this thread is because Im hearing negative tones when these greens and the green speeds are being referred to. And I dont understand why. This to me, in general, is where green design and maintenance should be working towards.

These greens look like they would be alot of fun to play and the super is maintaining speeds appropriate for the slopes. Besides that the greens look absolutely immaculate. Very dense. And I havent seen one putt bounce yet, rolling very true.


Why are there negative comments flying around about this course and its greens?

And should the broadcast make a point to not refer to the greens as "slow"?

And express the green speeds in a more positive light? Throwing 10 1/2 feet out there and using the term "slow" isnt helping with the general publics plight obsession with the stimpmeter and fast greens.


These greens look absolutely great and there is a perfect meld between the design and maintenance this week at Dove Mountain.

 

[David Neveux]

Ian,

I've been watching most of the day at work and I've heard the announcers say twice they were stimping around "9." 

Unfortunately I've done less "watching" than I hoped for and have been listening mostly, so I haven't noticed how they are playing. 

In some of the interviews I saw / read early on in the week, the players were talking about the greens being the real meat of the golf course.  I posted an interview with Jack Nicklaus discussing the golf course and again I wasn't able to listen to the whole thing or hear it very well, but I do seem to remember some discussion on the greens. 

[John Foley]

Agree - they look good, the putts have a lot of challange and the pins are defining quite a bity of the stratagey. Good for Jack.

The did say that upslope putts we're really really slow and it showed.

[Brad Klein]

As I wrote in my Feb. 14 Golfweek review, these are amazingly over-busy greens. You'd need to see these greens for yourselves to see how contoured, sectioned and intensely circumscribed each "pin-able area" is. Nobody is building smaller segments for hole locations than Nicklaus. The pros can handle it, but no one else can.

Brad

[Andy Troeger]

As I wrote in my Feb. 14 Golfweek review, these are amazingly over-busy greens. You'd need to see these greens for yourselves to see how contoured, sectioned and intensely circumscribed each "pin-able area" is. Nobody is building smaller segments for hole locations than Nicklaus. The pros can handle it, but no one else can.

Brad

Brad,
How do these greens compare to Concession, Old Corkscrew, and some of Nicklaus' designs other recent efforts? Even more contoured, or similar?

[Brad Klein]

They are much more abruptly contoured than Concession. For a good comparison, the greens at Ritz-Carlton Dove Mountain are closer to the hyper-active 8th green at Valhalla in Kentucky, which is one of those that Nicklaus did himself in the renovation immediately after Sebonack. The greens at Concession have a softer, more sophisticated flow to them.

I'd need to check the precise dating of Concession, and also make sure who the field associate was on site there who was responsible for implementing that project. But in any case, Dove Mountain greens are busier. At the same time, there's lot of room and very elegant flow to the fairway shaping and width there, too. But those greens are volatile.

[PCCraig]

I have really never been the biggest fan of desert golf on TV, the courses always come off as a little dull for some reason (on TV).

However I thought it was a blast to watch the course and play yesterday. I would agree with Brad that I'm not sure I would want to see a 20-handicaper try to putt those greens, however it was fun to see the Professionals roll putts 6ft past on downhill slopes.

In adding to Brad's comments I don't really think the course was built for anyone other than the Professionals?

P.S.- I actually liked what I saw of the greenside bunkers alot too.

[BCrosby]

I too like the idea of highly contoured but slow greens.

I see Brad's point about the greens being too much for the bogey golfer. So slow them down a bit for regular play. Stimp them at 8 or so, not unlike the greens in the UK we enjoy so much.

I think Jack deserves some props here for a course that is delightfully outside the box.

Bob

[CJ Carder]

I didn't mind the greens at all - I agree with Pat that it was fun to see the pros actually having to think about a downhill 10 footer.

The one thing I didn't get was the super long par 5, #11.... why put the skinniest fairway on the longest hole on the course?  And further, why stick a bunker there?  And if you're going to stick a bunker there, why put such a huge face on the front of it so the players can't really advance it forward?  The hole was 694, and we know he had 265 for his 3rd.  If you assume a 300 yard drive, that means he was only able to advance the ball 130 yards out of the bunker.  I just don't understand the purpose of the bunker and the narrow fairway because the fairway bunker is (or should be for most players) a full shot penalty.

[Anthony Butler]

The one thing I didn't get was the super long par 5, #11.... why put the skinniest fairway on the longest hole on the course?  And further, why stick a bunker there?  And if you're going to stick a bunker there, why put such a huge face on the front of it so the players can't really advance it forward?

This was also the only fairway on the course that was not full visible from the tournament tees. Perhaps that's because it was also the flattest hole on the course. If Nicklaus had directed the hole about 15 yards right, there would have been more fairway on the mountain and the banking affect would have created greater visibility from the tee.

[Kenny Baer]

It think Dove Mountain looks awesome; you can actually notice the changes Nicklaus has made since he did Seboack w/ Doak.  

On TV (which only tells you so much) the course is full of strategy and the greens are awesome IMO.

I don't understand what you mean about a bogey golfer; yea they may 3 putt more than normal but who cares; putting is the one part of the game that anyone who can break 110 can do, a bogey golfer putts alot closer to a pro than any other part of the game. Ask any bogey golfer and no questyion 99% would rather be on the green with a 60 ft crazy putt than in a 6ft deep greenside bunker 30 ft. from the hole.  9 out of 10 times they will hit their putt closer than they would hit their bunker shot or chip.

[Joe Hancock]

The one thing I didn't get was the super long par 5, #11.... why put the skinniest fairway on the longest hole on the course?  And further, why stick a bunker there?  And if you're going to stick a bunker there, why put such a huge face on the front of it so the players can't really advance it forward?  The hole was 694, and we know he had 265 for his 3rd.  If you assume a 300 yard drive, that means he was only able to advance the ball 130 yards out of the bunker.  I just don't understand the purpose of the bunker and the narrow fairway because the fairway bunker is (or should be for most players) a full shot penalty.

This would be a good discussion on it's own. Good questions, and probably some good answers to be explored with that hole.

Go for it!

Joe

[Kenny Baer]

To sum up I have never heard a course criticized because the greens were too difficult for an amateur golfer.  I have heard forced carries; narrow fairways, OB in play to often, deep rough, deep bunkers, etc...

[Andy Troeger]

Kenny,
You need to get around more--I've heard that plenty of times, sometimes deservedly so! I've said it myself!

[Kenny Baer]

I think it is a stupid criticism; what does that even mean.  The greens are to hard for an amature golfer? 

[Kenny Baer]

 
Sorry if that came across as harsh, I just do not think that is valid.  Greens can be tricked up but if they are then they are for everyone, even Tiger, the amateur certainly won't be able to putt them as well as Tiger but he could without a doubt still putt them.

As where if every hole has a 200 yd carry than the amateur could not even play the course.  Same goes w/ rough, bunkers, etc./

[Brad Klein]

Kenny,

what it means if that if you have sunk $$$m into buying 850 acres and building out the infrastructure for 400 home sites (1/4-acre to 7 acres) and then created a 250-room, five star resort hotel and a 50,000 square foot clubhouse -- all of which is in place or in process at Ritz-Carlton Dove Mountain, you need to be concerned about how the course will play the other 51 weeks a year when the WGC is not there.

[Greg Chambers]

I'm going to take a stab at the green speed issue.  Whether they are rolling 9 or 10.5 doesn't matter.  Well, it shouldn't, anyway.  What should matter is that the speed of the greens is proper for the contours.  Yes, the uphill putts are going to be slower, but did you see how far past the hole those downhill putts were travelling?  Imagine a green running 12 on the stupid, I mean stimpmeter, those guys wouldn't have 6 footers coming back, they'd be 12, and there would REALLY be some bitching coming from the softies.  Here's where I make the point I'm trying to make.  The fact that the announcers are talking about how slow the greens are is TOTALLY irresponsible, and the same goes for the sanctioning body of the event that is doing NOTHING about it.  They should be explaining WHY the greens are running slower than normal, not just that they aren't up to normal PGA Tour speeds.  The fact that the greens are in terrific condition, and most likely, at least from what I see on TeeVee, extremely healthy, is totally being lost on the fact that the talking heads can't say anything about them other than that they're running very slow.  This is a huge problem for the golf industry as a whole, and somebody should be doing something about it...ahem...PGA...ahem...USGA...ahem...GCSAA...

I applaud the efforts of the turf staff, the course looks great, obviously a very successful grow in.  And the design looks to be very interesting and a ton of fun to play.

[Sean Leary]

Could they be 1 click faster and still be OK?

[Bill_McBride]

They are much more abruptly contoured than Concession. For a good comparison, the greens at Ritz-Carlton Dove Mountain are closer to the hyper-active 8th green at Valhalla in Kentucky, which is one of those that Nicklaus did himself in the renovation immediately after Sebonack. The greens at Concession have a softer, more sophisticated flow to them.

I'd need to check the precise dating of Concession, and also make sure who the field associate was on site there who was responsible for implementing that project. But in any case, Dove Mountain greens are busier. At the same time, there's lot of room and very elegant flow to the fairway shaping and width there, too. But those greens are volatile.

If this work took place after Sebonac, is it possible Jack's work is showing some Doakish influence? 

[Greg Chambers]

Could they be 1 click faster and still be OK?

You've obviously been brainwashed by the theory that faster greens are better greens.  Consistency and overall turf health are what matter most.  And if the consistancy is there, then any good golfer, and especially the professionals, should be able to adjust their putting stroke accordingly.

[Jerry Kluger]

The green contours are certainly interesting but the green surrounds are what really interest me - the closely mowed areas around the greens cause the balls to roll down the slope and make for challenging and thought provoking recovery shots - the tighter the lies, the greater the challenge.

[Anthony Butler]

Kenny,

what it means if that if you have sunk $$$m into buying 850 acres and building out the infrastructure for 400 home sites (1/4-acre to 7 acres) and then created a 250-room, five star resort hotel and a 50,000 square foot clubhouse -- all of which is in place or in process at Ritz-Carlton Dove Mountain, you need to be concerned about how the course will play the other 51 weeks a year when the WGC is not there.

There is no question the course is very demanding of your short game, but if they play off the correct tees you should be able to get around.

It does seem somewhat isolated (and no doubt is going to be expensive). They'll need a lot of business groups to stay and play to make this thing pay.

[Carl Nichols]

Jerry:
I agree -- the combination of interesting green surrounds together with the green contours makes for some fun recovery shots.  I don't think they'd be as interesting if the greens were flat, however.

[Jerry Kluger]

Carl: I agree with you that green contours are certainly an important part of the equation but barring some unfortunate lie in a bunker, the recovery shot from a tight lie is often more difficult than a bunker shot.  Also, it's fun to watch a ball kick off the fringe and down the closely mowed area - high rough doesn't often work well in the desert so these closely mowed areas are a refreshing change. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()