[Mike_Cirba]

Because if there is no interest, penalty, sophistication, subtlety, or risk at the green, then there is also no interest, penalty, sophistication, subtlety, or risk to the approach shot, and therefore makes positioning one's drive anywhere in play at a reasonable distance the only requirement from the tee.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike C,

Do you read posts before dismissing them so out of hand?

TD,

I basically agree with Jones, and for that matter, you!  My green contouring is generally gently rolling in the middle, with key "spikes" or ridges coming in at angles on the edge, making a shot to the middle a leveler but longish putt likely to result in par, vs. a great or rejected shot at the Sunday pin that is more all or nothging.

I believe that Pete Dye is a classic example of green surrounds that are so tough that he figures he is defending par over the whole course by causing bogeys on at least a few holes.  I see some of that in your work, too.

[Doug Siebert]

Tom Doak said what I was thinking, and far better than I could.

Why do people arguing against the concept of defending par always start whining about it being difficult to make birdies?  When the hell did we arrive at the expectation that birdies should be easy to come by?  Next thing you know people will complain about small greens on par 5s because that makes it more difficult to hit the green in two!

I think this all goes back to the good old "hit it high and let it stick" mentality.  This philosophy argues against firm or contoured greens because it is "unfair" if one hits a good shot straight for the pin which then fails to hold and bounds past the pin, or takes a slope and ends up away from the hole.

The better shotmaker is not one who can aim directly at the hole and hit it where he's aiming, with perhaps a bit of adjustment for the wind.  It is one who can assess the situation and determine the proper spot to aim based on his skills and goals, along with other relevant conditions, and can stroke the ball in such a way as to maximize the likelihood that the ball either goes where he's aimed it or misses where he has determined is the best place to miss.  The first is pure mechanics, the second is an art.

The best putter is not one who can can aim directly at the hole, or possibly a few inches to one side (since the modern architect fortunately can't yet create a completely flat green due to drainage needs) and hit it where he aims.  It is one who can read the slopes and produce a stroke that produces the right combination of speed and line to allow the ball to drop in the hole, or if it misses miss where the easiest follow up putt can be made.  Again, the first is pure mechanics, the second is an art.

Note that in both scenarios the best golfer requires a green that "defends par" to fully assess his skills and identify the player who has truly mastered the full range of skills including the "art" of golf, rather than a guy who has simply (OK its not THAT simple, but its far from the whole package) mastered the mechanics of alignment and contacting the ball with the club moving squarely to the target.

IMHO, the more you are against defending par the more you believe golfing skill is basically about mechanics, the less issue you have with defending par and can find few scenarios in golf you find truly "unfair" the more you believe golfing skill is basically about art.  The mechanical guys think penal designs are OK, after all what's wrong with OB on both sides because a good golfer hits the ball down the middle.  The artsy guys have a problem with penal designs, they want to see penalties imposed on the golfer by the difficulty of the situation he finds himself in after a bad shot, not three on the tee reloads.

There, let's see people start to tear this little treatise apart

[Scott Warren]

Why "defend par" at the green? 

Because no-one ever lost a ball four putting.

Is there a prize for the best answer using the fewest words?

[Mark_Fine]

I have yet to hear a good answer why we don't make the greens smaller and "defend par" around the smaller putting surfaces.  The is much more interest and creativity in recovery shots around the green then trying to make a 15 foot putt with 10 feet of break. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,

In one of my "off line" discussions on gca the other day, someone opined that golfers get bored with an endless sucsession of chip shots more than longish putts. I would say its probably true both ways on that one.  I guess the solution for interesting golf would be a mixture of green sizes or medium sized greens, preferring the former myself.  Again, note I am more concerned with interest and variety than purely defending par for the better player.

Scott,

I almost posted the same question, although I witnessed a lost ball 4 putt once. My high school teammate left one on the lip, got angry and whacked his ball across the street (the green was hard against a road)  He looked at me and his competitors asking if it was really a gimme.  They were actually willing to concede the putt but since I was in a mortal death match for the last spot on the team, I made him play it as it lies. The stroke and distance penalty seemed a bit odd for a 2" putt, but that is what I assessed. He complained about me to the coach, but the coach backed me up.

Tom Doak's "how many missed fw in a 59" comment comes close, but IMHO, loses out because the 59 is probably a rarer occurrence than the lost ball 4 putt (or at least less common than the 4 putt)  Its easy and pithy to use the extreme example to prove an architectural point, but its always questionable philosophically. (Duval made the point, not Tom)

In other words, if there were some narrower fw, it wouldn't have stopped Duval, but for the average day, when typical tour pros hit about 2 of 3 fw, would those 4-5 shots from rough reduced spin and tougher lie produced fewer birdie attempts/more bogeys than wider fw and more severe greens? 

Not to use the pro tour again (kind of the typical extreme example) but it sounds like most love the old Augusta for the "roar" or a wide fw, tough green course because its said to produce more birdies, vs. a US Open course that produces a lot of pars, with every fw and green guarded against nearly every miss. That might be the best argument for defending par at the green, especially since no one would host a "Can you break 100 at Augusta" magazine or TV feature.

[TEPaul]

"I have yet to hear a good answer why we don't make the greens smaller and "defend par" around the smaller putting surfaces.  The is much more interest and creativity in recovery shots around the green then trying to make a 15 foot putt with 10 feet of break. "

Mark:

I don't believe I would agree with that. I think far more golfers would find more interest and creativity in complex putts than recovery shots from around greens.

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
I don't buy the argument that golfers get "bored with an endless sucsession of chip shots".  You must have been talking with scratch golfers who are mostly hung up on "fairness" or else a group that has poor short games.  
Mark

[TEPaul]

"Because, at the conclusion of play on a hole, that's where everyone must end up.
Other than the tee, it's the only common area used by every* golfer."


Patrick:

That's true to some extent (however tees are very variable given all golfers) but the more important aspect of the green and green-end, is unlike the tee (and the rest of holes other than the green and green-end) the green and green-end does not rely on the requirment of strength (distance) as much as elsewhere and so everyone at least is on a more equal footing given strength is not as much the necessity for a successful shot at the green and green-end as on other parts of all holes.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
It's kind of like miniature golf, after a while you get tired of trying to hit it through the clown's mouth.  Outside of The Old Course, how many of the great old courses in the British Isles have wild and crazy greens?  There are some for sure but not most.  I don't see golfers over there getting bored with sucessions of chip shots and 15 foot putts with 6 inches or so of break.  
Mark

[Adrian_Stiff]

Mark- There is a limit as to just how small you can go with a green for agronomic reasons. You need to factor what is good for design and what will work. Generally a green less than 400 sq metres (in the UK) is likely to be a problem. The shape, position, shade, situation, length of approach, walk off area to next tee, maintenance turning are all factors that affect the agronomics that need to be factored by the golf course architect within his green design.

[Ross Tuddenham]

I am new here so please go lightly on me.

I would have thought the act of putting and the inherent statistics involved with it in themselves protect par, if that is something you wish to aim for.  If only 10% of putts are holed from outside eight feet then the green complex and the rest of the hole working back should ensure that it is not overly easy to get within that distance.  But should not make it impossible for well thought out shots, from all level of players to achieve this.

If you think about the features on and around the green that may produce this scenario then it can be seen that as a secondary function they will provide interest on the putting green.  For example a slope from back to front, a hollow that runs off the back or towards a bunker.  Then when you add natural contours that fit in with surroundings to green I think this would more than protect the par, as anything from more than 10 foot with even a hint of break is very hard to hole.  This natural and unforced type of green means that a two putt is not a given but would be if you judge the break to a reasonable degree.  It means great enjoyment can be gained by seeing a putt that is nicely judge take the break and finish in a nice lagged position.  What is the point in having a green where a putt it even 1% from what it should have been end up 10 foot from the hole.

So I think a green that is in keeping with its surroundings, that provides thought for an approach shot and is moderately contoured is all that is needed to protect par.  The challenge is inherent in the design of the whole hole and the probability of holing a putt. All the architect needs to do id add excitement and thinking to the statistics. 

[Mark_Fine]

Adrian,
I realize there is a limit, however, just citing one example, there is a course in the Poconos that year on year has the best conditioned greens up there, they average less than 3,000 sq.ft and the super's budget is about $300K a year  and they do about 30,000 rounds a year.  It can be done.
Mark

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian,
I realize there is a limit, however, just citing one example, there is a course in the Poconos that year on year has the best conditioned greens up there, they average less than 3,000 sq.ft and the super's budget is about $300K a year  and they do about 30,000 rounds a year.  It can be done.
Mark

Possibly in some climates, never in the UK.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike C,

Do you read posts before dismissing them so out of hand?

Hi Jeff,

No, I didn't.   My apologies as I framed my response strictly from the title of your thread.

I agree that there needs to be a "reward" side at the green, as well, whether it's putting uphill, or a straighter putt, or even an easier recovery from flirting with a riskier shot.   If it's all penalty, then that isn't strategic either.

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

I have seen that same argument before about how great courses in the UK don't have any wild greens.  It's true of Troon and Carnoustie and Birkdale and Lytham, but NOT true of Dornoch and Machrihanish and Sandwich and North Berwick.

In the UK they also have a lot of wind, which most American courses don't, and that gives them an element of challenge that American designers try to make up for in other ways.

I don't object to the idea of small greens, I just don't think they are the one and only solution to golf.

[Ross Tuddenham]

I hope this does not come off as rude, but is Tom_Doak the real Tom Doak?
If so, it is an honour to be involved with such debate.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
Sounds good......
I am sure there is a great putter out there..maybe better than anyone in the world but he cannot strike the ball well enough to play the tour and same for someone with a great short game but he cannot putt or any combination of the above.  And so I wonder which should carry the most weight in the equation.  IMHO I think the average golfer feels he can become a better putter or short game player much easier than he can become a great ball striker yet that may not be true.....but anyhow it makes us put emphasis on the longer shots of the game.....and so many of us stand in awe of how the great players strike the ball and in many cases we dont emphasize their short game and putting skills.....
It is sort of like the football team that can get inside the 20 but just can't get the results once there.....lot of golfers in that boat.....so I don't know but I do agree that approach angles are not given enough consideration in strategy today...

[Kalen Braley]

I hope this does not come off as rude, but is Tom_Doak the real Tom Doak?
If so, it is an honour to be involved with such debate.

He claims to be the real T Doak, but most of us think he's an alien imposter or something.   

[JESII]

I figured he was a road paver from southern indiana...

[Scott Witter]

Ross,

Since you brought it up...yes this is also the REAL Scott Witter, gifted  ;)GCA,  the one and only and quite funny  ;Dboth on and off camera, Jeffrey Brauer, GCA , cutting edge GCA don't ever bet against him -Mike Young and who could forget the majestic presence and craftsman -Mark Fine-GCA

Stop in anytime and catch our Thursday night show and don't forget to try the veal...an autograph session will start at 10:00 sharp, but you'll have to check with my agent Sir Thomas E. Paul, for personal appearances.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,
Sounds good......
.........I wonder which should carry the most weight in the equation.  IMHO I think the average golfer feels he can become a better putter or short game player much easier than he can become a great ball striker yet that may not be true........................It is sort of like the football team that can get inside the 20 but just can't get the results once there.....lot of golfers in that boat.....

Mike,

While golfers feel like they can get better at putting and short game, they rarely ever do, nor do I see lots of golfers in the short game area of the range, but over on the main tee beating range balls.  Statistically, putting and short game is where we lose most of our strokes.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
It's kind of like miniature golf, after a while you get tired of trying to hit it through the clown's mouth.  Outside of The Old Course, how many of the great old courses in the British Isles have wild and crazy greens?  There are some for sure but not most.  I don't see golfers over there getting bored with sucessions of chip shots and 15 foot putts with 6 inches or so of break."


Mark:

I can't really comment on the British Isles and what golfers there like or don't, but I can on Americans and our courses here. From my experiences here I've seen a lot of golfers who like very challenging putting, maybe even too much so----eg the constant push for higher and higher greenspeeds.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()